Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can say when the report of the committee recommended by the Ottawa Conference to consider the future of the Empire Marketing Board may be expected?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): In setting up the Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, the Ottawa Conference recommended that the report should be available not later than the 31st May. In subsequent correspondence between the several Governments represented on the Committee it was suggested that it would be advantageous if the report were available by the 31st March, and I understand that the Committee are using their best endeavours to have their report ready by, or soon after, the last-mentioned date.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will request the Committee recommended by the Ottawa Conference to consider the future of the Empire Marketing Board to take into account and report on the advisability of changing the direction of the Board's activities to the promotion of the sale of this country's products in the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: The terms of reference of the Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were laid down at the Ottawa Conference, and include a survey of the functions and organisation of the Empire Marketing Board. I may
add, however, that in accordance with the recommendation adopted by the Imperial Economic Conference of 1930, the scope of the Empire Marketing Board Vote is no longer limited to the promotion of the marketing of Empire goods in the United Kingdom.

IMPORT DUTIES, INDIA (COTTON GOODS).

Mr. FLEMING: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that no relief is granted to British cotton goods in the duties in the recent Indian Budget; and can he say what representations he is making to the Government of India?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The existing duties on cotton piece goods entering India, which were due to expire on the 31st March, are to be continued for a further six months pending consideration by the Government of India of the report of the Indian Tariff Board. The position is being closely watched, and I have no reason to think that the Government of India are not fully alive to the importance attached to the matter in this country.

Mr. FLEMING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire is suffering intensely from these duties, and that unless something is done quickly there is great danger of the cotton industry collapsing entirely?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Manchester Chamber of Commerce have put the whole case before us, and we are keeping in close touch with them throughout.

GERMAN EXPORT BOND SYSTEM (OATS).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet been able to obtain any information as to the intention of Germany to recommence subsidising the export of oats in the near future?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend refers to the German export bond system, the answer is that the system has been extended to cover oats as from 11th March. Under this system as now modified the exporter of oats or oat products receives a certificate which entitles him to import an equivalent quantity of oats at half the normal rate of duty.

FROZEN BEEF (IMPORTS).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total importation of frozen beef cuts during the month of February; and if he is satisfied that the present machinery is adequate to prevent improper importation of frozen beef by sending it cut up in sacks and labelled as offal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The imports of frozen beef cuts classed with "other descriptions" of frozen beef from all countries during February amounted to 1,203 tons. Frozen beef cuts imported with the bone, as well as offals, fall under the head of "other descriptions," which are not specifically limited by the Ottawa Agreement and, so far as I am aware, no question of misdescription arises. As regards the voluntary regulation of such imports I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) on 7th March.

DENMARK.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make any statement as to the principal provisions which will be contained in the new trade treaty between Great Britain and Denmark; and whether there will be an opportunity for discussing this matter in Parliament?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject as negotiations are still in progress. Any agreements that His Majesty's Government may make with foreign Governments as a result of trade negotiations, will be laid on the Table of the House before ratification in accordance with the practice which has for some time been observed.

Mr. BERNAYS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the only country with which His Majesty's Government have successfully concluded a trade agreement is Iceland, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the use he is making of the bargaining weapon?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, the statement made by my hon. Friend is not correct. We are quite satisfied with the progress of the negotiations so far as they have gone.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: In what respect is my hon. Friend's information incorrect—that we have not concluded an agreement with Iceland?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, in every respect.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the results of his deliberations on the problem of Japanese competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government are pressing on as quickly as possible with their consideration of this matter, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he is not showing any undue haste in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am never satisfied with anything.

FRANCE (BRITISH IMPORTS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, as the result of trade conversations between the French and Swedish Governments, it has been agreed that the compensating exchange tax of 15 per cent. on Swedish imports into France shall be abolished; and what progress has been made through our trade conversations with the French towards a similar result?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part representations have been made to the French Government in regard to the 15 per cent. tax and other forms of discrimination against this country, but a satisfactory settlement has not yet been reached.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: As, this matter has been under consideration for some long time, could my right hon. Friend now indicate that he is hopeful of a real and satisfactory solution within a reasonable period of time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would not like to make any prophecy, but only three days ago we were discussing the matter in detail with representatives of the French Government.

CHAIN STORES.

Mrs. COPELAND: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to show in which countries there is in existence legislation which prevents the opening of price-cutting chain stores in towns below a certain minimum population; and, if not, whether he will arrange to obtain information as to the effects of such legislation with a view to introducing similar legislation in this country to protect the retailers in small towns against large scale competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to certain regulations prohibiting the opening of uniform price shops in Germany, but I see no need for the introduction of similar legislation in this country.

MEAT PRICES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the price of chilling steers at Buenos Aires per kilo

The wholesale prices of various classes of imported chilled and frozen meat at the London Central Markets, Smithfield, on the 1st November, 1932, and on the 20th March, 1933, are shown in the following table:


—



1st November, 1932.
20th March, 1933.






Per 8 lbs.
Per 8 lbs.


Chilled Beef—



s.
d.

s.
d.
s.
d.

s.
d.


Argentine Hinds
…
…
…
3
2
to
4
0
3
4
to
4
0


Argentine Fores
…
…
…
2
0
to
2
3
2
8
to
2
10


Frozen Beef—















Australian Hinds
…
…
…
2
0
to
2
2*
2
2
to
2
3


Australian Crops
…
…
…
1
5
to
1
6*
2
0
to
2
1


New Zealand Hinds
…
…
…
2
0
to
2
2
2s. 2d.


New Zealand Fores
…
…
…
1
4
to
1
5
1
10
to
1
11


Frozen Mutton—















New Zealand Wethers
…
…
…
2
2
to
2
8
2
10
to
3
4


New Zealand Ewes
…
…
…
1
4
to
1
8
2
0
to
2
6


Australian Frozen Wethers
…
…
…
1
8
to
2
0
2
0
to
2
6


Argentine Wethers
…
…
…
1
6
to
2
2
2
2
to
2
8


Frozen Lamb—















New Zealand
…
…
…
2
10
to
3
10
3
4
to
4
0


Australian
…
…
…
2
6
to
3
6
2
10
to
3
6


Argentine
…
…
…
2
0
to
3
6
2
10
to
3
8


* Not quoted on 1st November. Prices given are for 2nd November.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total increase in price of one year's imports of beef, mutton and lamb at the rate of 2d. per pound increase on the basis of imports agreed to by the Ottawa Agreements?

on 1st November, 1932, and the price at the latest convenient date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to reports from Buenos Aires published in the Anglo-South American Bank Circular the price of chilling steers was 24 cents per live kilo on the 2nd November, 1932, and 25 cents on the 8th March. I have no quotation for the Liniers Market more recent than for the week ended 18th February when the price of special frigorifico steers was 15 to 17 cents per live kilo as compared with 15 to 16.8 cents for the week ended 4th November, 1932.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale prices of chilled and frozen meat at Smithfield Market on 1st November, 1932, and at the present time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a table of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If it be assumed that, on the basis of the Ottawa Agreements, our total imports of chilled or frozen beef, mutton and lamb, including imports from the Dominions, amount in 1933 to 17,750,000 cwts., an increase of 2d. per lb. on the value of these imports would represent about £16,500,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask what the total cost would be if the right hon. Gentleman included the 2d. per lb. increase on home produce as well as imported?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I have not worked out that sum, but, if my hon. Friend would like me to do so, I will do my best.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the intention of the Government to increase the price of home produce as well as imported?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will not this increase in price help our export markets?

ARGENTINA.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement as to the result of the recent discussions with the trade mission from the Argentine Republic?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as the discussions are still proceeding.

GREECE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent imposition of an embargo on British products into Greece, unless in exchange for Greek products and under a permit issued by the Bank of Greece, the Government propose to introduce similar retaliatory measures in respect of that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The rule that certain kinds of goods can only be imported into Greece in exchange for Greek products applies to imports from all sources and representations have been made to the Greek Government based on the Commercial Treaty with Greece of 1926 that any restriction on the importation of British goods shall not be proportionately greater than that applicable to goods of other foreign origin and that existing contracts shall be respected. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion and the situation will continue to be watched.

Mr. RAMSAY: is my right hon. Friend aware that the ineffectiveness of the Board of Trade and Foreign Office in dealing with this question of foreign embargoes is causing a great deal of anxiety, and can he foreshadow a more
resolute policy by the Government in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend. So far as we are concerned, we have to remember that if we are making arrangements with foreign countries they must be arrived at by agreement.

COUPON TRADING.

Mr. PRICE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the proposal to set up a departmental committee on coupon trading is already operating adversely on employment; and when the committee will be appointed and the terms of reference?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received one representation to the effect stated in the first part of the question. The terms of reference and composition of the committee will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when the composition will be complete?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope next week.

FALSTER ZEALAND BRIDGE CONTRACT.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make any further statement with regard to the negotiations for financing the construction of the Danish Falster bridge in this country?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

PRICE LEVEL.

Mr. MABANE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's policy of scientific expansion includes a process of currency inflation or any similar monetary expedient for maintaining or raising the price level?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his question on the 2nd March, to which I cannot usefully add.

Mr. MABANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hopes of the business community were raised by his definite statement, last autumn and on the 16th February, that the Government
would raise sterling prices; and is he aware that those hopes are turning to despair in the absence of any positive declaration of policy by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never made any statement that the Government would raise sterling prices. My statement was that the Government desired to see sterling prices rise. I have on various occasions explained the policy in that connection, and have pointed out that, if we had not succeeded in raising sterling prices, at any rate we had prevented them from falling, as gold prices have fallen.

Mr. THORNE: By the use of the £150,000,000.

Mr. COCKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet discovered what is the meaning of the policy of "scientific expansion"? If not, will he ask the Prime Minister, because it was his phrase?

IMPORTED DOORS.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY (for Duchess of ATHOLL): 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that ready-made doors were imported from the Soviet Union from August, 1932, to January, 1933, inclusive, at prices averaging from 2.4 to 3.5 shillings each; and if, in view of the effect on the builders' woodwork industry, he will consider obtaining powers to prevent competition of this kind similar to the powers conferred as a result of the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that ready-made doors have been imported from the Soviet Union approximately at the prices stated. As regards the latter part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time.

Captain RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this import of Russian doors is inflicting widespread distress on the smaller manufacturers in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations have been made to us from both sides on the question.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the keenest competition comes from Sweden and America, and not from Soviet Russia?

Captain RAMSAY: Is it not reasonable that traders in this country should get at least the same protection as Canadian traders are getting out of the Ottawa Agreements?

RUSSIA.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN): 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the statistics in his possession as to our invisible exports to Russia, covering chartering of steamers, insurance, etc., for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that such information as we possess is not sufficiently precise to justify me in giving it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will intimate to any Dominions, which may be proposing to introduce legislation on the lines of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, that it is not the desire of the United Kingdom that members of our forces which may be visiting those Dominions in future should be deprived of the right they have hitherto enjoyed of recourse to the local civil courts, by writ of habeas corpus, if it is alleged that a military court has exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Having regard to all the circumstances I do not feel that it would be possible to adopt my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether it is his intention to introduce any legislation in the near future to deal with the problem of coast erosion?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on the 8th March of last year, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject unless the Bill could be proceeded with substantially as an agreed Measure.

Captain MACDONALD: May I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to find what measure of agree-
ment there is in the House on this subject? Owing to the amount of coast erosion that is occurring, this is a very urgent matter. Will he consult with Members representing coast constituences to see whether there is agreement on the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, sir, we are ready to receive representations from anyone who is directly interested in this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SEWAGE, GLASGOW (CHEMICAL TREATMENT).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in viek of the complaints of Clydebank Town Council and other local authorities regarding the action of Glasgow Corporation in suspending, for reasons of economy, the chemical treatment of sewage entering the River Clyde at Dalmuir, he will request the Glasgow Corporation to reconsider the decision, in view of the danger to public health caused by the suspension of chemical treatment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Department of Health for Scotland have received no complaints regarding the action of Glasgow Corporation in suspending the chemical treatment of sewage entering the River Clyde from the sewage works at Dalmuir, and I am informed that the Medical Officer of Health of Glasgow is of opinion that there has been no danger to public health arising from the action taken. The matter was, however, considered by the Corporation on the 16th instant, when they approved a recommendation that provision be made in their next year's estimates for the resumption of the chemical treatment of the sewage at the sewage works as from the 1st June, 1933.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Are we to take it that the chemical treatment was entirely supererogatory and useless?

Mr. SKELTON: No, sir; that conclusion cannot be drawn from my answer.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Captain A. RAMSAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the financial straits in which
smallholders in Peeblesshire are placed owing to the condition of agriculture in Scotland and the fact that their rents are now the highest in the locality, he will consider making reductions in these rents for the current year similar to those recently made by private owners of adjacent properties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I assume that the holdings to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are those situated on Haystoun Estate belonging to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I have no information regarding the rents paid to owners of adjacent properties. The Department's tenants at Haystoun are entitled to have their rents revised periodically by the Scottish Land Court, and I find that of the 19 holders concerned, 15 qualified not less than two years ago to claim such revision of rent but have not exercised their right. Of the remaining four, three will be eligible to claim revision at Martinmas, 1933, and the other at Martinmas, 1934. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it is necessary to take action on the lines suggested in the question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it that there are certain individuals here who have a right to claim a reduction of rent, and make no claim?

Sir G. COLLINS: They had the right to apply for a revision of rent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: But they did not make any application?

Sir G. COLLINS: They did not exercise their right to have their rent revised.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is this not evidence that those individuals did not know that they had the right?

Captain RAMSAY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land is at present available in Midlothian for holdings for unemployed miners; and whether applications from men of other trades will be considered?

Sir G. COLLINS: Thirty-one acres have been made available at Oakbank in Midlothian. Nine acres or thereby are still unlet. Applications in this and other areas are open to others than miners.

Captain McEWEN (for Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN): 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of smallholdings in Scotland now and in 1931; and the number of unsatisfied applications in the possession of his Department?

Sir G. COLLINS: The only figures available in precise form are those based on the agricultural returns taken by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on the 4th June in each year, which show that, in the years 1931 and 1932, the numbers of agricultural holdings in Scotland exceeding one acre and not exceeding 50 acres in extent were 50,495 and 50,590 respectively. The number of unsatisfied applications for new holdings on the Department's lists at 28th February, 1933, was 5,329.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. LEONARD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the report covering the inquiry into the Milk Marketing (Scotland) Scheme has been prepared; and whether it is intended to publish it, and when?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have considered the report and hope to be in a position to submit the scheme to Parliament at an early date; but I do not propose to publish the report.

Mr. LEONARD: In view of the extensive data and evidence submitted during this inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of publishing, and will he, on considering the report, whether it is published or otherwise, bear in mind that part of the Milk Reorganising Committee's Report which states that substantial advantages would be gained from a comprehensive scheme covering the whole of Great Britain?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reports of those inquiries under the Act are confidential, and I can give no assurance that my view on submission of the report will be revised or altered.

HOUSING.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of Government subsidies paid to local authorities and private companies or
persons, respectively, for housing since 1st November, 1918, to 31st December, 1932; and the total number of houses erected over the same period?

Mr. SKELTON: During the period in question the total amounts of State subsidies paid by the Department of Health for Scotland in respect of houses built or reconstructed by local authorities and by private companies or persons were £13,375,668 and £2,845,011 respectively. The total number of houses built or reconstructed during the above period with State assistance was 155,200.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authorities that have decided to put into operation a means test on tenants in municipal houses in reply to the recent circular sent out by his Department?

Mr. SKELTON: I am aware from recent Press notices that a number of local authorities have under consideration the question of putting into operation a means test for the tenants of their houses, but the Department of Health for Scotland are not yet in a position to say how many local authorities have come to a definite decision in the matter.

FILMS (CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that local licensing authorities in Scotland only possess powers to make regulations ensuring safety in cinemas, and that therefore these authorities have no power to require licensees to exhibit only films passed by the British Board of Film Censors or to regulate the admission of children and young persons under the age of 16 years to see films passed by the Board as suitable for exhibition to adults only; and what action he proposes to take to protect the public, and more especially children and young persons, from the exhibition of unsuitable films?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am advised that the legal position in Scotland is as stated in the first part of the question, though I am not aware that the matter has been the subject of judicial decision. As regards the latter part of the question, legislation would be required to change the present position, and I cannot give any undertaking about this. I am, however, at present engaged in reviewing the whole question.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my right hon. Friend think that the children and young persons of Scotland are having fair consideration in this matter, when one remembers that, for over 10 years there have been regulations under the English Home Office which have protected many children and young persons from the exhibition of unsuitable films?

Sir G. COLLINS: Without giving any definite opinion on the subject, agree that it requires close consideration; and, as I have said in my answer to the Noble Lady, the whole matter is receiving my careful consideration at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERWINDING ACCIDENTS.

Mr. TINKER: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines, if the committee he has set up to inquire into the overwinding accidents in mines have commenced their inquiries; and if he can state the approximate date when a report will be made?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The committee was only appointed on the 15th February and has already held one meeting. The hon. Member will recognise that this is a highly technical inquiry which will involve the taking of much evidence and that I cannot at present forecast the date of its conclusion.

WAGES.

Mr. TINKER: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has been in communication with the Mining Association in regard to the wages question after July next?

Mr. E. BROWN: On this question generally, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on the 23rd February to a question by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and to supplementary questions which followed.

Mr. TINKER: Is the Minister for Mines aware that there is much anxiety in the coalfields over the attitude of the Mining Association, and will not the Government take some steps to get this question discussed?

Mr. BROWN: I am constantly in touch with the Mining Association about a variety of matters, including this one.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. A. RAMSAY: 41.
asked the Lord President of the Council if he is prepared to make available to the House the latest report of the Fuel Research Board on the commercial possibilities of producing oil from coal by the processes of low-temperature carbonisation and of hydrogenation?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The commercial possibilities of the processes referred to by the hon. Member can only be assessed after reasonably large-scale experiments are carried out under commercial conditions and labour and other costs carefully determined, and in general the Fuel Research Board has not been in a position to do more than report upon technical progress made, and to indicate the factors upon which commercial success depends. As regards low temperature carbonisation, of which process oil is not the main product, the economic factors which must be taken into consideration vary according to local conditions, such as the cost of raw material available, the price and markets for the products—coke, gas and tar—cost of labour, etc., as well as of the capabilities of the particular type of plant. The general question is discussed in the Annual Report of the Fuel Research Board for the year ended the 31st March, 1931. The results of tests on a number of plants have been published from time to time. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the reports on these tests, which give technical data from which a judgment can be made of the suitability of the plant for any set of local conditions. The Fuel Research Board have not reported in detail on the commercial possibilities of the hydrogenation process, though a reference to the matter will be found in the Annual Report of the Board for the year ended the 31st March, 1932.

Mr. RAMSAY: As my right hon. Friend is aware, there is great public interest in this matter. Does he not think that progress is much more likely to be made if the Government would make it clear whether or not they are prepared to support financially the development of the matter?

EXPORTS (IRISH FREE STATE).

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of coal sent from
this country to the Irish Free State from the passing of the Import Duties Act to 1st March, 1933, and for the same period in the previous year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ended February, 1933, the domestic exports of coal from the United Kingdom consigned to the Irish Free State amounted to 1,778,000 tons, as compared with 2,406,000 tons in the preceding 12 months.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what other countries the Irish Free State is importing coal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are filling up the gap left by the absence of British coal by coal imported from Germany and Poland.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that represent in value a greater amount than has been obtained from the Irish Free State in the form of duties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE STATION, CRAWFORD PLACE, LONDON.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before coming to any decision regarding the closing of the police station in Crawford Place, W.1, he will have inquiry made and satisfy himself that the district lying between Crawford Place and Hyde Park can still be accorded the same degree of protection as heretofore?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend may be assured that the protection afforded will not be prejudiced in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISAS (UNITED STATES CITIZENS).

Mr. MANDER: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries in Europe in which American citizens are able to travel either without a visa or with a visa free of charge?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have no official information but I understand that United States citizens are
admitted to the following European countries, without visas:


Belgium.
Italy.


Czechoslovakia.
Norway.


Denmark.
Sweden.


Holland.
Switzerland.

No European countries issue visas to United States citizens free of charge.

Mr. MANDER: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that American visitors are deterred from coming to this country, that a loss of trade occurs to this country by the charge of 10 dollars which is made here; and will the hon. Gentleman try to bring our custom in line with the rest of Europe?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY WELFARE.

Miss RATHBONE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that analysis of the reports of the medical officers of health shows that only about half of the county councils and about a fourth of the borough councils exercise their power to provide milk for expectant mothers during the last three months of pregnancy and during lactation; and whether, in view of the high maternal mortality rate and the privation being suffered by many mothers owing to their husbands' unemployment, he can take steps to urge on local authorities that they should all put this power into operation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Information available to the Department indicates that such provision is made by at least 80 per cent. of the county and borough councils. There is much variation in the use that is made of the milk, but my right hon. Friend does not think that the issue of a circular, on the general provision made, would be useful. Action is taken in individual areas where my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES (ASSESSMENTS).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of requests that he has received from local authorities to change the period of revaluation from five to 10 years; and what steps he proposes to take, if any?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has received representations in favour of extending the period between revaluations for rating purposes from 227 local authorities. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 9th February to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson).

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (WIRELESS RECEPTION).

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of installing a wireless receiving set in one of the committee rooms of the House, in order that Members may have the opportunity of hearing broadcast inter-imperial or international statements of policy from time to time?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The hon. Member's suggestion was carefully considered three years ago, but was strongly opposed by practically all sections of the House. So far as I am aware the position has not altered since, and I see great difficulties in carrying out the hon. Member's wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health what rent, excluding local rates, an investor would have to charge for a house costing £360 on which he had borrowed 90 per cent. from a building society under the arrangements proposed in the new Bill; and what would be the similar rent of a house costing £320?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: On a house costing £360 the sum of 8s. a week would enable an investor to repay the 90 per cent. loan in a period of 30 years and provide a return of 6 per cent. on his own share (10 per cent.) of the cost of the house during that time. An addition of 2s. a week would cover maintenance, etc., and leave a margin in the early years. A rent of 10s. a week would, therefore, be sufficient for these purposes, and after 30 years the only charge on the rent would be cost of maintenance. On a house costing £320 the corresponding rent would be about 9s. 2d. a week.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: May I take it that at the end of 30 years the house would belong to the investor, so that after 30 years it would give him a higher yield?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is true. After 30 years the loan would be paid off and the house, if it was worth £360, would presumably be worth at least half that sum, say £180, and therefore, if he continued to collect a rent of 8s. a week, or £21 per year, on his £36 originally invested, his investment would then yield over 50 per cent.

Mr. THORNE: Would not the rent depend on the amount of interest he would have to pay?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC.

Mr. MANDER: 42.
asked the Prime Minister, in connection with the Government's negotiations for an arms embargo on both aggressor and victim or on aggressor alone, the respective positions taken up by the various countries consulted.

Mr. BALDWIN: The matter is still under discussion. I am, therefore, unable at this stage to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. JOEL: 43.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state in what year the next Imperial Conference is to be held?

Mr. BALDWIN: No arrangement has yet been made regarding the date of the next Imperial Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (COLLECTION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate loss to the Revenue if the present system of collecting 75 per cent. of the Income Tax in January were abolished and the former system of collecting only 50 per cent. were reinstituted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of such a change depends upon the yield of Income Tax in the coming year, and this is not a matter that I can enter into in advance of my Budget statement.

WAYS AND MEANS ADVANCES.

Mr. MABANE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statutory authority the Treasury acts in compelling the Bank of England to make ways and means advances to the Government or to accept repayment of money so borrowed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Treasury has power to compel the Bank of England to lend money to the Government. Statutory authority is required to enable the Treasury to borrow from the Bank of England and for the Bank of England to lend to the Treasury. Such authority is given by Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts from time to time. One condition invariably imposed by Parliament is that borrowing in the form of ways and means advances must be repaid not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SERVICE LICENCE APPLICATIONS (HEARING).

Mr. REMER (for Mr. THORP): 34.
asked the Minister of Transport why an application of the Thames Valley Traction Company, Limited, of Reading, for a licence to run stage coaches between High Wycombe and Lane End was appointed by the Traffic Commissioners for the southern area to be heard at Weymouth, more than 100 miles away, although the head office of the Commissioners is at Reading and they also hold sittings at Oxford and at High Wycombe; whether he is aware that 18 other applications were also fixed for hearing either at Weymouth or at Dorchester, both over 100 miles away; and whether he will direct the Commissioners to have more regard to the convenience of applicants?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Under Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act, the Commissioners are required to hold public sittings at such places in their area as appear to them convenient, and I am

assured that, in exercising their discretion, it is their normal practice to have regard to the convenience of operators. I am, however, causing a copy of the hon. Member's question to be circulated to the Traffic Commissioners concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA GOLDFIELD.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any claims have yet been granted to the prospectors in the Kenya goldfield to start actual mining operations; and, if so, how many?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The total number of claims registered in the Kavirondo goldfield up to the end of January last was 8,287. This total, however, includes those which have lapsed by time or have been abandoned. No mining lease has yet been granted. For the rights exercisable under a claim I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) on 8th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how far he proposes to go to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: We hope to take the first five Orders, the Financial Resolution of the Bill that received its Second Reading last night; and the two Orders which were down on the Paper last night and which we failed to obtain.

Motion made, and Question put.
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be considered this day before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Reports of Supply of 9th, 14th and 16th March may be taken after Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 252, Noes, 35.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[3.22 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Atholl, Duchess of
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bernays, Robert
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Blindell, James
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartland, George A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.


Burghley, Lord
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Robinson, John Roland


Burnett, John George
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horobin, Ian M.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Ronald D.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hurd, Sir Percy
Runge, Norah Cecil


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Christie, James Archibald
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Ker, J. Campbell
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Kimball, Lawrence
Salt, Edward W.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Leach, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Copeland, Ida
Lees-Jones, John
Scone, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, Walter S.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Soper, Richard


Denville, Alfred
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mabane, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Drewe, Cedric
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spent, William Patrick


Duckworth, George A. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stevenson, James


Duggan, Hubert John
McKie, John Hamilton
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Storey, Samuel


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Eastwood, John Francis
Maitland, Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Margesson, Capt Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elmley, Viscount
Martin, Thomas B.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Milne, Charles
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morrison, William Shephard
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
White, Henry Graham


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nunn, William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wilson, G. H, A. (Cambridge U.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Palmer, Francis Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Peake, Captain Osbert
Womersley, Walter James


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pearson, William G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Peat, Charles U.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Granville, Edgar
Petherick, M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pickering, Ernest H.



Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major




George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William



Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, James



First Resolution read a Second time.

BILLS REPORTED.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

DOG RACING (LOCAL OPTION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [9th MARCH.]

Resolutions reported,

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1933.

"1. That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 148,700, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad excluding His Majesty's India Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

2. That a sum not exceeding £9,284,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Allen), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £2,840,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

4. That a sum, not exceeding £911,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

5. That a sum, not exceeding £3,524,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

6. That a sum, not exceeding £4,473,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

7. That a sum, not exceeding £227,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."

3.32 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out "148,700," and to insert instead thereof "148,600."
I should like to ask one or two questions of the Financial Secretary to the War Office with regard to the numbers provided in these Estimates. He told us, when introducing the Estimates, that it was not necessary to apologise for the present size of the British Army. I want to ask whether any consideration has been given to the new circumstances caused by the new quota scheme of the Prime Minister for the Continent? We have had proposals in which the various States have been allotted quotas of so many men. Where exactly do we come in that quota scheme? When the announcement was made, it was said that it was a Continental business, but that subsequently the forces of other States would be brought into some kind of alignment. As I understand the scheme, there were numbers of 200,000, 100,000 and 50,000 men and so forth allotted on a militia basis of eight months' training. We have a Regular Army and a Territorial Army. If one takes the Regular Army we come in somewhere about the same as Spain, we are rather less than Rumania, but more than Yugoslavia. Taking in the Territorial Force, we are above everybody except Russia. I do not know upon what principle those allocations have been made. I do not know whether it is the Socialist principle, to each according to his needs and from each according to his means. I should like to know whether, as a matter of fact, the War Office have considered these Establishments in the light of those proposals.
It is always said that our Army exists mainly as a police force for the British Empire. I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what possible threats there are to the British Army. If the proposals of the Prime Minister come off and there are considerable reductions on the Continent, I take it that we shall want some reduction in the Army at home and also in the Army overseas. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will tell us something about the matter. I would also like to ask him about some smaller specific points, one of which is in regard to the increase in the numbers of the Royal Engineers. On page 10 of the Estimates a slight increase is shown in the numbers of the Royal Engineers, and the note says:
The increase is due mainly to a revision of establishments of Fortress Companies abroad.
I should like the hon. Member to explain where those fortress companies are and the reasons which have led to a revision of these establishments upwards. The next point is one which I raised last year. It is the question of the very high percentage of officers and non-commissioned officers to rank and file in our regimental establishments. It is now something like one officer or non-commissioned officer to every five men. It rises in the Cavalry to something like one to every four and in the Household Cavalry one to every three. In a modern army, with the intelligent and educated men we have in the ranks, there should not be the need for so large a proportion of officers or non-commissioned officers. The answer which is always given to me is that it is necessary because we have a small Army which is only a nucleus and that therefore if you have a large number of officers and non-commissioned officers you have room for expansion. That may be so, but it seems to me to affect the training of the men to have such a large proportion of officers. How does that apply to the Cavalry? The establishments of the Cavalry show a higher proportion of officers and non-commissioned officers than any other arm of the Service, and the Household Cavalry the highest of all. Whatever cause there may be for retaining the amount of Cavalry which we now have—I take it that the plea will be put up that it is retained mainly for possible operations in uncivilised countries—I do not imagine that anyone expects that cavalry would be used to a very large extent if there were a European War again. I think that the lessons of the last War were against it. It is very unlikely that you would want a rapid expansion of cavalry. Certainly you would not want a rapid expansion of the Household Cavalry. Therefore, there is a clear case for a considerable cutting down of the numbers of officers and noncommissioned officers in the Cavalry units.
Taking the general question of numbers, there has not been any very large increase, but—the question was raised by one of my hon. Friends—we ought to be expecting a steady decrease, due to the fact that mechanisation and so forth makes troops more mobile and improvements in armaments make them more effective. While the hon. Member
says that he does not apologise in the least for these Estimates—he referred back to Mr. Tom Shaw—we expect there to be a steady decrease. I am aware that our establishments at home very largely depend upon our establishments in India, and that any real reduction of our forces at home must depend on settling the Indian difficulties. It may be that as long as we have an army in India and also have to keep an army at home we cannot get any effective reduction, but it must be remembered that in addition to our regular troops there is the Territorial Force, and the Reserve, and if the proposal for a limitation of continental forces comes into effect and some of the work which now falls to the Regular Army is handed over to the Territorials, we ought to be able to see a considerable reduction in armaments. I am moving a reduction in Vote A in order to voice our general objection to armaments and our wish that they should be reduced. We propose to go to a vote upon it, not upon the other items in the Army Estimates, and in this way register our protest against an expenditure we think is unjustified if the Government are right when they say that they cannot find money for other objects.

3.42 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I want to ask one or two questions of the Financial Secretary, and I am encouraged to do so by his statement the other night that he had made notes of every speech and intended to give a reply. In looking through his reply I can find no answer to one point except that the matter is being considered. In the Estimates it says that there has been a change in the organisation of the battalion and that it now comprises a headquarter wing, one machine gun company, three rifle companies, and is to have four anti-tank weapons and two Lewis gun machines for anti-aircraft defence. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins) and the only reply given was that the matter is still under consideration—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is the Vote for men and does not deal with the number of guns.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I wanted to deal with the number of guns, but if that is out of order I will leave it. But there are certain things shown in these Estimates which are not really there. My complaint is that the Army Estimates should not show things which are not really there or which are represented by other things. It is about time we knew that the Army Estimates represented what was true and the things that were there. I do not suppose that the War Office have given the Financial Secretary any answer to this point and I must protest that the matter has not received proper attention. We have a small Army and the least we can do is to see that it is properly equipped. You cannot organise these things at the last moment, and it is about time that we gave up sending out armies improperly equipped when any little frontier trouble breaks out. It took Lord Kitchener 10 years to organise against the Mahdi in Egypt; and we have no right to risk that sort of thing again. Our soldiers should be properly equipped. The War Office with their swollen staff and their pigeon holes are always capable of looking after themselves, and it is up to us to see that the men are properly armed and equipped.

3.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I hope the Financial Secretary will not listen to the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) in regard to our Cavalry. If there is one thing which we learnt from the War it is the value of cavalry at the beginning of a war. If it had not been for the cavalry at the beginning of the Great War we should never have held the enemy back. Therefore, it is essential that the numbers should not be further reduced, and I hope that the War Office will not tamper with the small but very efficient cavalry force which we still have, and that they will not be mechanised or turned into something else. In war time it is essential to have the earliest information of the enemy, and the best way to obtain that is by personal reconnaissance. Aeroplanes can only give you information of masses of men, it requires the man on the horse to tell you where and what developments are taking place. Our field officers are mounted for the one purpose of being able to go forward and find out
exactly the situation. Without cavalry we should be unable to fight a war in Europe or anywhere else.
There is another point—the number of officers in the infantry. We have a large number of subaltern officers with long service, largely due to the fact that senior officers have not been retiring. If a larger number of senior officers were retired it would bring promotion to the junior officers. If these junior officers find that there is no hope of promotion they will not continue, and I suggest that subaltern officers who have 10 or 12 years' service should be given the rank of captain without pay. It would not add anything to the expenditure, you could give them brevet rank. In the Royal Engineers it has been found necessary not only to promote officers after 10 years service but to pay them as captains. I am asking very little for the infantry. I am only asking that these officers should be given brevet rank, not paid, and I feel certain that it would add to the efficiency of the Army and keep these officers in the Service.
There is one other point I must mention, and that is as to the numbers shown in this Estimate, 148,700 of all ranks. The majority of these ranks are infantry, and the infantry are armed with rifles. We might reduce those numbers very considerably if we had not foolishly run away from the lesson of the War and disbanded our Machine Gun Corps. If we had our Machine Gun Corps back again we could reduce the numbers of our infantry very considerably. I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to consider once more the reviving of the Machine Gun Corps. That would not add to the numbers of the personnel of the Army, and it would give vastly greater power. Just as we claim that the Air Force is able to replace men on the ground, so I am certain that the machine gunners, properly organised and trained in units, would reduce the number of infantry required, and in any war they would add greatly to the efficiency of the Army. I feel keenly about it because I have all my life been a tutor of machine guns. In fact I am somewhat responsible for the regulations in the text books of to-day. I suggested this organisation seven years before the War, but the suggestion was then laughed at. When the War came the War Office turned to the very organisation that I had suggested.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member has suggested the revival of the Machine Gun Corps. I am told by my Army friends that there are machine guns with all infantry battalions. Might we not abolish a considerable number of cavalry regiments and have them replaced with machine guns? I know that some of the generals will be up against me in this proposal. I notice that there are 11 regiments of cavalry at home and two in Egypt. That is apart from the Household regiments. Could we not save half of the regiments at home and have more armoured car regiments, and so have more practical and up-to-date methods of fighting? I feel strongly that it is necessary that some of us who are modern should do everything we can to encourage the Army to be absolutely up-to-date. Speaking seriously, I do not think that cavalry, apart from occasional scouting in certain country, can be very valuable in the future. We have to remember the value of the Air Force. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he does not think it possible, in the interests of economy, for some more of the cavalry regiments to be squeezed together in one unit, and at the same time whether it is not possible still further to develop the mechanical side of the Army. It is up to some of us who are not immersed entirely in this or that section of the Army to try to give the commensense point of view in these matters.

3.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I would not have risen but for the remarks of my Devonshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He being a sailor is, I imagine, thinking of the horse marines and not of the cavalry, and I thought the horse marines were abolished. Any reduction of cavalry would be a very great mistake indeed. I have served nearly all my life as an infantryman, and I fully realise the tremendous value of cavalry to the infantry. There are people who say that the cavalry did not do a great deal during the War. Those who say anything of that sort entirely forget Allenby and Palestine, and that without the cavalry there we should have been completely at a loss. Some people may think it possible to replace some of the cavalry by means of mounted infantry. The mounted infantry were a very fine
force, but they could not do the work of cavalry. Cavalry work is distinct, and the numbers of the cavalry instead of being reduced should rather be increased. The expense of an armoured car regiment is considerably greater than the expense of a cavalry regiment, so that there would be no saving in that way. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin) suggested that the Machine Gun Corps be revived. I do not think I agree with him. Really the machine gunner has first to be an infantryman. Otherwise he cannot do his work properly. I entirely disagree from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay.

3.57 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): As not infrequently happens in these Debates, we are hearing the different views of Members of the House, ex-members of the Service, and very often these views admirably answer the views previously expressed by equally gallant and equally distinguished Members. In this case I think Torquay has been answered by Tiverton. With regard to the Amendment, that the numbers under Vote A should be reduced, I think that from the way the hon. Gentleman moved it and the absence of any such criticism during the main Debate on the Army Estimates, there is considerable doubt, even in the minds of hon. Members opposite, as to whether there is any real ground for reducing the numbers of the Army. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to a large extent provided the reply to his own speech, for he referred to the situation in India, to the reasons which make it necessary for us to maintain troops in that part of the world, and suggested that similarly we had to maintain troops in other distant parts of the world, and that we had to maintain some relation between the number of troops at home and the numbers serving abroad. That really is the answer to his case.
References to the armed forces of Continental States have very little bearing upon the British Army, which is not an Army designed for Continental warfare. The ex-Kaiser was strongly condemned at the time of the War for having described our Army as a "contemptible" force. I do not know exactly what was the German word he used, but from the point of view of Continental
warfare it is a force of no account as it exists to-day. It has never been designed to take part in great Continental wars. It has been designed for the purpose which it has fulfilled for so long, the purpose of maintaining order in the British Empire. I think that the hon. Member for Lime-house made no attempt to make out a case for reducing the numbers on the grounds he mentioned. A small point arose in regard to the increase in the Royal Engineers. If hon. Members will look at the figures they will see that officers have been reduced by one, and "other ranks" have gone up by 126. One hundred and twenty-six in a total of between 5,000 and 6,000 is so small a number as to be hardly worthy of comment. The reason for the increase is the anti-aircraft works and lights, which necessitate more personnel than they have demanded in the past.
With regard to the question of the cavalry—and I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for once resisted the temptation to voice his well-known views with regard to that arm of the Service—there, again, opinions on one side have been very much controverted by opinions on the other side. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) is perfectly right in reminding the House of the great service which the cavalry performed in one area of War on the last occasion. I think when officers and military experts are charged with not having learned the lessons of the last War satisfactorily, we ought to remember that part of the lesson, and we ought all to be on our guard against making the mistake, which, I think, has been very frequently made in the past, of learning the lessons of the last War too completely, and assuming that the next war is going to be exactly the same. Nobody knows, nobody can possibly tell, people can only speculate upon the conditions which will prevail in future warfare, and I think it is certainly too early, if the time ever comes, to assume that the function of the cavalry is finished.
As far as my own opinion is concerned, although it is of very little value in such matters, I am convinced that the cavalry has been sufficiently reduced already, and I can assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that we are
as anxious as he is to bring the Army up to date in every way. There, again, we are hampered and delayed by the limitation of expenditure which is imposed upon us, and, of course, also by the natural caution which must accompany any progress in that direction, owing to the uncertainty under which we always work as to whether the latest invention is the last invention, and whether the newest thing is really the best. That is always a satisfactory and convincing reason, to my mind, for not proceeding too rapidly in that direction.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) about the block and delay in promotion, I know that he feels strongly on this point. There are many extremely hard cases of officers who have been held back from promotion far too long, which is due, as my hon. and gallant Friend himself said, largely at the present time to the reluctance of officers to leave the Service towards the end of their career, owing probably to the financial and commercial position, the depression and the fact that opportunities and openings elsewhere are not so numerous and attractive as at other times. The same applies to junior officers. The normal wastage of officers is not taking place. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the Army Council have gone very carefully into this question in all its bear-bags, and have decided that the award which was made last year of 2s. a day extra to lieutenants on completion of 13 years' service was, on the whole, a better way of dealing with it than granting the brevet rank of captain. The hon. and gallant Member thinks that officers themselves would prefer the brevet rank. Probably they would prefer both if they could have it, but whether they would prefer rank without pay or pay without rank is largely a matter of opinion.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: This is a very important point. Some of these officers with 15 and 16 years' service, and married, find themselves in the position that people say, "He is a fool; he could not pass his promotion examination," or "He has been passed over for promotion," or "There is something wrong with him." It is a stigma on him because he has not any military rank. That is the point.

Mr. COOPER: I fully appreciate the point, of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is very hard, and it may, in some cases, lead to misconstruction as to their value and their service; but we have made 'a special arrangement, of which I have just told the House. Whether they would rather suffer a possible loss in the estimation of their friends or the substantial loss in their pockets is a matter which can only be decided according to opinion.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Why cannot they have both?

Mr. COOPER: My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that artillery and engineer officers are promoted, in any case, after a certain number of years' service, but that has never been the rule in the Cavalry, Infantry and Tank Corps, and if you were to adopt that rule a great many would suffer from it, as a great many would benefit from it. In the Artillery and Engineers, nobody is promoted to that rank until he has had so many years' service, whereas in the Cavalry and Infantry a great many are fortunate enough, owing to unexpected wastage in the higher commands, to attain that rank long before their contemporaries in the Engineers and Artillery attain that rank, and the Cavalry and Infantry could not possibly expect to have it both ways.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I am only suggesting a brevet, which costs nothing, but does give Army promotion.

Mr. COOPER: I am well aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. The matter has been gone into very carefully by the Army Council, and the decisions which they made were, of course, largely due to the military members of

the Army Council who have experience and are fully in touch with all arms of the Service. They consider that this was the better way of dealing with it. I entirely appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view, but I do not think that the grievance, although a real and genuine grievance, can be dealt with more satisfactorily than it has been dealt with already.

I shall be surprised—at least I shall regret—if the hon. Member for Limehouse insists upon forcing, although I understand it is his intention to force, his Amendment to a Division, because so far as a gesture towards peace goes, this is really not one which would convince anyone in the world that we were set upon disarmament. Supposing we were to reduce the present number of our Forces by 100 men, I think the view of other Powers would be that we had lost our senses.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Will my hon. Friend say why on Vote A, page 38, a misleading description is given of the "Organisation of the Battalion," and things are described which are not there?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that I should be in order on this Vote in explaining or in dealing at all with the question of anti-tank guns, which is, I understand, the point of the question.

Brigadier-General BROWN: It is referred to in Vote A, page 38.

Mr. SPEAKER: Vote A deals only with the number of men.

Question put, "That '148,700' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 30.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cook, Thomas A.


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooke, Douglas


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Cooper, A. Duff


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Copeland, Ida


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Buchan, John
Crooke, J. Smedley


Atholl, Duchess of
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burnett, John George
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Butler, Richard Austen
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Denville, Alfred


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Castlereagh, Viscount
Drewe, Cedric


Bernays, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Christie, James Archibald
Duggan, Hubert John


Blindell, James
Colfox, Major William Philip
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Dunglass, Lord


Eastwood, John Francis
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross, Ronald D.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Knight, Holford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rothschild, James A. de


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Emrys-Evans, p. v.
Lees-Jones, John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Savery, Samuel Servington


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Scone, Lord


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mabane, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Soper, Richard


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Martin, Thomas B.
Spens, William Patrick


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hales, Harold K.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zett'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Major A, J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hartington, Marquess of
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Templeton, William P.


Hartland, George A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nunn, William
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peat, Charles U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hopkinson, Austin
Petherick, M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Horobin, Ian M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Womersley, Walter James


Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Ker, J. Campbell
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agreed with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.20 p.m.

Brigadier-General NATION: I wish to ask two or three questions with regard
to this Vote. I observe that provision is made in this Vote for three new services. In the first place there is the provision of accommodation at Pinehurst, Aldershot for the Royal Tank Corps at a total estimated cost of £61,000 of which £20,000 is to be spent in the financial year 1933 and £35,000 in future years, £6,000 being the estimated expenditure to 31st March. Another new service is the provision of accommodation at Salisbury for the chemical staff at a cost of
£44,000 of which £10,000 is to be spent in the coming year and £34,000 in future years. There is also an item of £116,000 for the purchase of land. In view of the statement submitted by the British Government at Geneva which, if accepted, will involve a reduction of all our heavy batteries, either by equipping them with smaller guns, or by the reduction of units, should this new expenditure be undertaken. There are 28 medium batteries and 25 heavy batteries, and, as regards tanks, five battalions which would have to be reorganised or rearmed with smaller guns and tanks. In view of those reductions this is hardly a time at which to embark on expenditure for new buildings.
I would like the Financial Secretary to give the House some information as to whether this accommodation for the Tank Corps at Aldershot at a cost of £61,000 is absolutely necessary in view of the new establishment which tank battalions may have to adopt. Then, in view of the possible reduction in heavy batteries, could not the tank battalions be accommodated in some of the quarters that will be vacated. With regard to the chemical staff at Salisbury, as we propose that chemical warfare should be abolished altogether, is it necessary to spend £44,000 on this new service? Finally, I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some information as regards the purpose of this land purchase which represents £116,000 in the Estimate. I do not want to know where the land is but I think we are entitled to know what it is for.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: Three points have been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The first is as to accommodation provided for the Royal Tank Corps. Of course, the War Office when these Estimates were drawn up were not aware and could not then be aware of the latest proposals—many proposals have been made during the past year or more—with regard to disarmament. It is still much too early, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself must realise, for us to alter our Estimates in any way or make different provision with a view to the possible effect of the acceptance of these proposals, if they are accepted, by the various Powers on the Continent whom we have to consider. The same remark
to a large extent applies to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticism of our expenditure on chemical research work. He is well aware that it has been agreed to abolish chemical warfare, but I do not suppose he would suggest that it would be wise at this time to abolish all preventive measures and give up every kind of defence against the possibility of a chemical attack on this country.
I do not think that anybody in any camp of political opinion would suggest at the present time—I have never heard it suggested among any of my most extreme pacifist friends, and I have a great many—that it would be wise to assume that no Power in the future would ever make use of chemical warfare and that it was therefore perfectly safe to abandon all defensive measures in that respect. As I have often informed the House, such research work as is being carried on in regard to chemical warfare in this country, is entirely with a view to protection from possible gas attack in some future emergency. The importance of such work can hardly be over-estimated. It is therefore obviously necessary to continue such research and such work. With regard to the purchase of land, representing, I think, some £100,000, that item covers a good many different purchases in different parts of the country where site extensions are necessary. We have these dealings in our Land Department year after year. We very often sell as much land as we acquire, and very often show a profit on the land of which we dispose. This year the sum mentioned is considered necessary in order to provide training for the troops. The hon. and gallant Member himself suggested it would be impossible to state exactly where all this land is situated, but I can assure him that we have only decided to purchase it after the most careful consideration, and it is, in the opinion of our military advisers, necessary for the welfare and training of the troops.

REPORT [14TH MARCH.]

Resolutions reported,

AIR ESTIMATES, 1933.

"1. That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 31,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in
India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £4,110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £1,610,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

4. That a sum, riot exceeding £7,203,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.

5. That a sum, not exceeding £490,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."

4.27 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out "31,000," and to insert instead thereof, "30,900."
It is quite a pleasant feature of this Vote, at least to those who sit on these benches, that the Air Force according to these Estimates will be reduced by 1,000 men this year as compared with 1932. But even with the number standing at the figure mentioned in the Estimate we con-shier it to be still too large, particularly for the purposes which the Air Ministry itself indicated during the previous Debate a week ago. For example, in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State, on the strength, distribution and organisation of the Royal Air Force, it is stated:
The strength of the Royal Air Force remains accordingly at last year's figures of 75½ regular squadrons including the equivalent of 13½ squadrons in the Fleet Air Arm.
He goes on:
The Home Defence Force still embodies only 42 of the 52 squadrons of the original programme; and of these 42, 13 are non-regular.
On these figures in the White Paper it would appear that 42 squadrons out of seventy-five and a half is really too large a proportion purely for home defence particularly when the major part of the speech of the Secretary of State dealt
with the operations which had to be undertaken by the Royal Air Force in various parts of the world in policing and also for the purpose of protecting certain tribes from the attacks of their more unruly neighbours. The right hon. Gentleman justified the use of the Air Force in other parts of the world by a description of the effects which these machines of the air had upon the uncultivated minds of the tribes who were attacked.
I submit that if the main use of the Air Force was for the purposes that he described in other parts of the world, 42 squadrons are still too many, although 10 squadrons short of the original programme for what may be called home defence, because the greater part of the speech that he devoted to discussing the uses of the Air Force in home affairs was with regard to flights, development in the ability of the airmen to beat existing records, and various other matters affecting the efficiency of flying in the Service generally. If the 42 squadrons that we have operating as a home defence force are to be used merely as a training ground, I submit that the numbers are much too large and that they could be reduced still further.
The Government themselves have agreed to reduce the number of men in the Air Force and to postpone the extension of the programme upon which they themselves decided several years ago. The home defence force alone is still 10 squadrons below the original programme, and the very fact that, in these so-called troubled times abroad, when we are being advised outside this House from various sources to become even more vigorous in our training because of the possibilities of war—the very fact that the Government themselves consider matters to be so peaceful, or at least the dangers so little imminent, that they can afford to reduce the numbers of airmen by 1,000 and still keep the Air Force under the strength originally decided upon, is a justification for the attitude that we have adopted all along. I am not endeavouring to criticise harshly the defence put up by the Air Minister last Tuesday for the use to which the Air Force has been put abroad in protective and policing operations. It may have been necessary, but I suggest that the main future of an Air Force in this or in any country will be to develop civil aviation so that it can be used either for
tourist purposes, pleasure purposes, or commercial purposes and that as a weapon either of defence or offence in the armoury of any nation it will cease to be considered as a part of those Services.

4.35 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) began by saying that he was satisfied with the reduction that we have been able to effect in the Estimates this year, but hardly had I recovered from the pleasure of the compliment when he decided to move still further to reduce our numbers by 100 men.

Mr. MACLEAN: I did not say I was satisfied. I said it was satisfactory, but not fully satisfactory.

Sir P. SASSOON: It was partially satisfactory, anyhow. The hon. Member went on to say that, judging from the speech which I made last Tuesday in introducing the Estimates, it was obvious that the numbers wanted for home defence were too great, because I dwelt to a great extent on the activities of the Air Force overseas. That is true, but when I dwelt upon the activities of the Air Force overseas, I was trying to show to the House that in the discharge overseas of their essential military duties they were able at the same time to perform a large mass of beneficial and productive work as well. It is obvious that that kind of work could not be performed either to the same extent or in the same manner in England, and if I am not able to dilate upon that kind of work at home, that does not mean that the squadrons which we have at home are too numerous for the purposes for which they are created, namely, the purpose of home defence.
The hon. Member tried to draw me into an argument as to whether a fighting force is of any use for offence or defence, but I do not think on this occasion I will follow him into those fields of controversy. It is a usual experience in these Debates on Service Estimates to find that the proposals that are put forward by the Department concerned arouse criticism from two diametrically different directions. There are those who find fault, as we know, with the Estimates for being inadequate to provide for the essential
safety both of this country and of the Empire, and, on the other hand, there are those who urge, with a fervour which we must admire even if we do not altogether agree, that the fighting Services should be abolished altogether. One result is that the Ministers who are responsible for presenting these Estimates are left occasionally with the not uncomfortable feeling, perhaps, that they have been able in their Estimates to hit the happy mean. Certainly it would be more pleasing on these occasions if the whole House could unanimously agree to the Estimates, but that is really too much to ask, and therefore one has to fall back upon the consolation that, having satisfied neither of the extreme opinions, one has perhaps done just about right.
I would have that feeling if it were not for the fact that the advocates of disarmament go so much further in the pursuit of their particular policy than those who urge that the Estimates do not go sufficiently far in providing for the necessary safety of the country. There is some limit to the claims of those who desire to see our Air Forces greatly increased, but there is no limit to the abolitionists. They apparently would be willing for this country to disarm alone among the nations of the world. Therefore, criticism from both sections of opinion does not necessarily, unfortunately, imply that the Estimates have succeeded in holding the balance truly.
In restricting these Estimates to the very modest figure which we have presented, I think the Air Ministry have shown great restraint and considerable faith in the influence that this may have upon the other nations of the world. I do not think that I can develop that theme any further, but I should like to repeat what I have said on other occasions, that we have in recent years done our best to show an example to the world and the nations at large. It is quite clear that in doing so the Air Ministry fully realises what its responsibilities are and, realising them, understands that there are also limits to the risks which this country can run. Therefore, I hope I may make the appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and I am sure he will do so. He has stated his case very moderately, and I hope that now, in view of the decrease that we have made in these Estimates, he will not wish to press his Amendment any further.

Question put, "That '31,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 28.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[4.42 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W).
Peaks, Captain Osbert


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grimston, R. V.
Peat, Charles U.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potherick, M.


Albery, Irving James
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Applin, Lieut.-Cot. Reginald V. K.
Hales, Harold K.
Pybus, Percy John


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western isle)


Balniel, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hartland, George A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Renter, John R.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Robinson, John Roland


Bernays, Robert
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ross, Ronald D.


Blindell, James
Hopkinson, Austin
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hornby, Frank
Rothschild, James A. de


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horobin, Ian M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Burnett, John George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Butler, Richard Austen
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Campbell, vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kimball, Lawrence
Scone, Lord


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Knight, Holford
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Christie, James Archibald
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lees-Jones, John
Soper, Richard


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Copeland, Ida
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cowan, D. M.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spens, William Patrick


Crooke, J. Smedley
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mabane, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Davison, Sir William Henry
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Drewe, Cedric
McKie, John Hamilton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Templeton, William P.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Robert Anthony
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morrison, William Shephard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Womersley, Walter James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Munro, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff).


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Captain Austin Hudson.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normgnton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hirst, George Henry


Buchanan, George
Dobbie, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Kirkwood, David
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Leonard, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Thorne, William James



Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.50 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: There is one matter which has excited a great deal of interest in the Midlands. I refer to the action of the Ministry with regard to the use of the sands at Mablethorpe. The question was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) at an earlier stage. Some of us gave our help during the past year and approached the Air Ministry in order to get some consideration of the disquiet which the arrangement has excited in the public mind. This area is very largely used as a resort by people from the Midlands, particularly from the city of Nottingham. It is also much used by a very large number of ramblers and hikers, who find the area particularly suitable for their purpose. When the Ministry announced that they were going to use the sands at Mablethorpe for bombing and other exercises we approached the Under-Secretary and made a request that particular consideration should be given to the public in this matter and negotiations took place with the local authorities who also were concerned about the arrangements. The Ministry arranged, I think I am right in saying, to exempt the month of July. [Interruption.] Well, at any rate, we asked that the holiday months of July and August should be exempt from the bombing exercises so that the public should not be unduly interfered with. After consideration my hon. Friend did agree to exclude part of that period, and we are much obliged for that concession. I raise the matter now to ask whether the Ministry could stretch their friendly consideration and exempt the few days over the August Bank Holiday. I understand that the August Bank Holiday does not come within the arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: What we ask for in the coast towns is to have an extension of the facilities already given by the Air Ministry to the last 10 days of July.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. The last 10 days of July are regarded favourably by persons from the Midlands, and I would ask whether the Ministry can meet the public wishes in regard to this period. If it were found impossible for the purposes of the Service to extend the concession over all of the holiday period, perhaps the substitution of some other period might be arranged so that this particular period of 10 days round about the end of July and Bank Holiday might be entirely free for the purposes of public enjoyment. We want to give the Ministry all the facilities they desire, and we thank them for the help they have given during the past year in meeting the public wishes and I do hope that they will be able to go a little further in the way suggested.

4.55 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have been in the House last Tuesday when this particular matter was so exhaustively dealt with by several hon. Members interested in the coast towns. I thought that the answers that I gave then proved satisfactory. The House will have been able to judge from my hon. and learned Friend's speech how far the Air Ministry have gone towards meeting the local inhabitants during last year. We had hoped that the large mass of hikers and ramblers to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers would also have been satisfied. I am asked in regard to the 10 days at the end of July. I am afraid that I cannot give any very definite answer at the moment. We cannot close the ranges for any definite period through July, but we are prepared to draw up our programme during that month with as much regard as possible to the wishes of the local authorities. When one remembers how far we have gone already to meet them, I think my hon. Friends might accept that assurance.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am much obliged to nay hon. Friend.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to raise a larger question on this point, which comes a little nearer to my own home. I refer to the occupation of a portion of Hampstead Heath by the Air Ministry. The Under-Secretary gave an answer on this subject which I think surprised the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). How is it that the Air Ministry schedule such areas as have been mentioned for their purposes? Surely, there is no special need for the Air Ministry to schedule an area at the seaside for its purposes. There is plenty of available land suitable for the purposes of the Air Ministry in other parts of the country without interfering with the comparatively limited opportunities that people have for enjoying the beauty spots of the seaside. Similarly, in regard to Hampstead Heath. No one will say that open spaces are too plentiful in any part of London or in the environments of London. Why, then, should the Air Ministry dump itself on Hampstead Heath and interfere with the pleasure of the general public?
This matter is not restricted to the Air Ministry. There seems to be a growing tendency, and it is time that the House protested against it, on the part of the Services to schedule and reserve for themselves places at the seaside and elsewhere where the general public go for their pleasures. Why they should schedule these areas is beyond my comprehension. The Services ought to take more care to avoid friction. Such things create animosity and unnecessary feeling. In the case of Mablethorpe sands it beats me why the Air Ministry should go there and interfere with the rights of the people to enjoy a lovely stretch of coastline. Such a proceeding requires justification from the point of view of the public weal. We ought to get from those in charge of the Services an undertaking that they will not interfere with areas where people go in their thousands year after year to enjoy a short period at the seaside, and the same argument applies to a place like Hampstead Heath, I do not blame the Air Ministry particularly. It is right that public resentment against this development on the part of the Services generally should be expressed in this House.

4.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The Under-Secretary seems to be under the impression that everybody was perfectly satisfied with what he said on the previous occasion. I think he has a letter from the representatives of Mablethorpe pointing out that they are not satisfied and that they ask for the whole of July. I have suggested a compromise. While I thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he says that he will make his arrangements this year, I would ask him to reconsider his decision not to give us the last 10 days of July.

5.0 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two points on this particular Vote which appear on page 72 under Iraq. There is a sum of £30,000 for a new station at Dhibban, which is 50 miles from Bagdad and in the middle of the desert. It is to be built at an unknown cost because the estimate is still under consideration. We have given up under the treaty arrangements with Iraq the Hinaidi aerodrome and recovered one-third of the initial cost of construction and maintenance. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, under the new arrangement whereby we are building this station, there is any provision as to its being ultimately taken over at a valuation by the Iraq Government when the present treaty lapses, and possibly new arrangements which we cannot visualise at this time come into force? There is another Vote for £1,000 for the Calcutta-Singapore route landing grounds. This is again in respect of a total the amount of which we are not told as it is still under consideration. We are thus putting a few letters towards our signature on blank cheques in respect of both these items. Are the landing grounds on the Calcutta-Singapore route for service use, or are they to be turned over to civil aviation for Imperial Airways to use when they extend their Imperial service? It seems to be a case of the taxpayer once more carrying the burden of providing landing grounds for Imperial Airways. I do not say that it is not right to do that, but it is a form of hidden subsidy, and I would like to know how much of the initial outlay will be covered in respect of interest by the landing fees which the
right hon. Gentleman hopes to get in future in the form of revenue on these aerodromes?

5.3 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. and gallant Friend rightly said that the totals of these two items are still under consideration. Therefore, I cannot give him the amounts. As soon as I can, I will let him know. We are not, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, signing blank cheques at all. We are signing cheques to the tune of £30,000 in the one case and £1,000 in the other. If we thought that the totals were going to be very much less than that, my hon. and gallant Friend would have had cause for complaint, but unfortunately the £30,000 will not be a sufficient sum to carry the whole cost. Therefore, we are safe in taking this initial sum. As soon as I can get any information, I will let my hon. and gallant Friend have it. A further point that was asked was in connection with the taking of Maplethorpe for the use of the Air Force. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked, "What are we coming to? What is this new policy of continually—and increasingly—taking more and mare areas to be scheduled for military purposes?" It is obvious that as long as we have Fighting Services they must have areas over which to train.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Why take seaside resorts?

Sir P. SASSOON: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman said that we were always taking the particular localities that were most favoured and were most popular at the holiday season. Then he said, "Fancy going to Hampstead Heath of all places and spoiling the pleasure of the people who use that healthy spot at holiday periods." It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman does not know for what purpose we went to Hampstead Heath It was merely to inhabit a particular house, and I do not think that that house being inhabited by the headquarters of an Auxiliary Air Force unit will spoil the pleasure of holiday-makers at Hampstead any more than if there were other inhabitants, civil or military, in that house.

Mr. JONES: Why cannot the house be more suitably located near Hendon Aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: Not only has it to be near Hendon Aerodrome, but near the homes of the people who use the headquarters, who are auxiliaries and volunteers and work in all parts of London. This house was chosen as the most central place for the men to attend their lectures when they were not flying. The house was there; we did not build it or disfigure it in any way. We simply took a house that was there, and we occupied it. With regard to Mablethorpe, the particular range that we need there has to be by the seaside because there are special kinds of firing at moored targets that necessitate a seaside area. We went round the whole of the coast of England to try and find a place that would cause the least possible amount of interference. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we did that, and we found that for every reason this particular locality was the most suitable. I really think that the hon. Members who voice the claims of the inhabitants of Mablethorpe so ably will eventually find that we are not so difficult to deal with as they think.

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.8 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to follow up a question which I put to the Under-Secretary on Tuesday, which was only partially answered by him. Under the heading K there is an item for marine craft on which £80,000 was spent in 1932, and for which there is an Estimate of the same sum for 1933. I asked on Tuesday how many marine craft there were in operation and whether when orders were placed for these motor boats, tenders had been invited from well-known firms which could build them. I am constrained to ask that question because I have never-seen or heard that estimates were at any time invited to build the last flotilla of 20 motor boats which was obtained by the Air Service. I understand that most of those boats, if not all, were built in Southampton or adjacent to it, but that no estimates were invited from other firms. It is rather difficult to understand why an order for a flotilla of 20 at onetime should be given to one firm located in one particular part of the country
when unemployment is so rampant in other parts of the country, and when there are other firms capable and efficient enough to undertake the building of these boats. That part of my question was not answered by the right hon. Gentleman. It is understandable that the Air Service should require, in addition to having air races over the land, marine craft in order to act as an auxiliary service to any operations that may take place over the sea. I should therefore like the Under-Secretary to give me some information with regard to any contracts that have been placed in the past, particularly for the last flotilla, and I should like to know what the Minister's intentions are with regard to any future orders.

5.11 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I thought that I answered this question to the best of my ability towards the end of Tuesday's Debate. This particular marine craft is of a type peculiar to the Air Force. They have to perform functions which are not identical to those performed by other marine craft which are to be found very readily and which are tendered for by other firms all over the country. We have made a point of putting the construction of this particular kind of marine craft out to tender to all those companies which we thought could give us the results we needed. The House will realise how essential it is that we should have the right type of craft. They should be of high speed to act as seaplane tenders and very often to rescue anybody fallen into the sea, and they have to perform functions of vital importance. We have, wherever necessary and possible, put the matter out to contract and public tender.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? Why are not plans submitted to firms who have shown that they are able to adapt themselves to the requirements of any particular form of motor boat? Surely if the Air Service wish for the best type of boat to suit their requirements it can be submitted to other firms.

Sir P. SASSOON: They were submitted.

Mr. MACLEAN: No tenders were invited from any of the motor boat builders in Scotland, who are among the highest class of builders.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member has already spoken once and has received his answer.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put it in the form of a question? Was any tender invited from any firm in Scotland?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that I can say anything more than I have said. If the hon. Member has any particular point to raise perhaps he will write to me and I will go into the matter and let him know better than I can by question and answer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.14 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information than he did last Tuesday with regard to the progress that is being made with the Imperial air route to Australia? As the first paying passenger on the African route last year, I should like to pay a tribute to the extraordinary efficiency and the courtesy of that particular Imperial air route. I do not think it has yet been realised what an immense boon and blessing this air route has been, and will be to an increasing degree, to a very large section of people from this country who are in the Civil Service in Central Africa, or to the settlers in that part of the world. In times gone by there has been some criticism that that African route ought to have been started several years before it actually came into operation. As regards the route to Australia, the Dutch have for some time now operated, and operated successfully, a very efficient line.
I think the African route has been so successful for two reasons: one is that there is unity of control, and the second reason is to be found in the generous contributions made by the Governments of the various countries over which the line passes. There has been some talk that other parties—the Indian Government, or the Australian Government, or separate companies in those countries—are likely to demand and perhaps to receive the right to organise and control a particular branch of the England to Australia air line. It seems to me that
that would be a fatal mistake. I do not think we can have efficiency on these long-distance routes unless we have unity of control. It is perfectly obvious that if there is a delay in any section of the line over which Imperial Airways have not got control there is no inducement to Imperial Airways to accelerate their planes on the other portions, acceleration involving an extra expenditure on petrol. I hope and trust that Imperial Airways will accept no responsibility whatever, and that the Government will encourage them not to accept any responsibility, for any portion of the line beyond Karachi or Singapore over which they have not complete control. In the American airlines to South America, which have been operating efficiently and successfully for many years now, this principle of unity of control has been maintained, and I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to give us some further information on the point, at least tell us that the matter is still under consideration with the Governments concerned, and that he may be able to give us some assurance that Imperial Airways, having operated with such success the line to Africa, will not be allowed to take over responsibility for operating a line to other parts of the Empire on which there cannot be unity of control.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I would like to ask the Minister of Air whether any steps are being taken in the direction of internationalising civil aviation, and, if so, what steps?

5.18 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary if he can give us any information as to whether it is the Government's ultimate idea that Croydon air port should be reserved for Imperial and cross-Channel traffic only, and, if so, when the Government contemplate that such a policy shall come into operation. At the present time there are several small and struggling but very worthy concerns located at Croydon air port who are living with the sword of Damocles over their heads. They have been granted only short-term tenancies by the Air Ministry, and if they could only know that within two or three years they would have to give up the tenancy—even know that the further tenancy was limited to only one year—they would have greater
peace of mind, even though they had not increased security, than they have under the present system, when they do not know whether they may have to leave at any moment.
A second point I wish to raise concerns National Flying Services. In this Estimate National Flying Services appear with no subsidy. Some years ago the Government made an agreement with this company one of the conditions of which was that they should lay down a great number of provincial landing grounds. Owing to various financial and other reasons they have not been able to fulfil that obligation. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under this Vote, there is in contemplation any fresh subsidy agreement with the small provincial clubs which have grown up as a result of the work of National Flying Services? I think they merit special consideration in the matter of grants to civil aviation even if the financial headquarters which brought them into being has failed and so forfeited its rights under the original agreement.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into the question of securing some relaxation in the regulations As to permits required for flying in Palestine and Egypt? Ordinary civil flying is almost impossible in Egypt unless one can give, I think it is, 48 hours' notice to the Residency and get a permit; and it is practically the same in the case of Palestine. It seems to be rather absurd that it should be fairly easy to get a permit to fly over Syria, and so much more difficult for an Englishman to get a permit in the case of one of our own mandated territories. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to communicate with the Director of Civil Aviation for Egypt I should be extremely grateful.

5.22 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: In reply to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), I will do all I can to look into the matter which he has raised, and see what can be done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked me about the future of the small companies at Croydon. As he knows, eventually, of course, that air port must be used entirely, or to a very great extent, for the
main traffic he referred to. We fully realise how uncertain must be the outlook of the small companies at Croydon, and we will bear that very prominently in mind and try to see that any hardship inflicted on them is made as light as possible. The same observation is true of the subsidiary clubs of National Flying Services. I cannot say anything more about that at present except to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, that the Air Ministry have the deepest sympathy for all these clubs, which were ancillary to the parent headquarters, the National Flying Services. With regard to the Australian route, I do not think I can add anything to what I said last week. I think my hon. and gallant Friend was present, and was able to judge of the progress made, which during the past few months has been extremely satisfactory. We hope that, unless there are other and unforeseen difficulties, the service will start not later than the early autumn of this year, and the point he raised about unity of control is being borne very prominently in mind. There will be unity of control as far as Singapore, and we hope and expect that the agreements we make with the Australian Government, with whom we are negotiating in the friendliest spirit, will result in the most efficient service possible.

REPORT [16TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1938.

1. "That 90,300 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 865 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £12,593,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.
3. That a sum, not exceeding £2,184,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934.
234
4. That a sum, not exceeding £3,099,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."

5.25 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to reduce the number of men by 100. I can imagine hon. Members opposite wondering why I am moving a reduction in the personnel of what is looked upon as the senior Service of this country. Every Britisher regards the Navy as our strongest arm of defence, forgetting how modern progress has changed warfare, and that perhaps we are not as dependent en the Navy as we used to be. I wish to draw attention to the large increase in the Navy Vote. The Votes of the other Services have been increased, but nothing as compared with the Navy Vote, where the increase is more than £3,000,000, equal to 6 per cent. of the Vote last year. That is no small item, and consequently I wish to call attention to the increase. Last year the First Lord of the Admiralty felt regretful at having to introduce Estimates which showed a reduction. I should think this year he feels more pleased with himself.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Unfortunately I did not hear the opening words of the hon. Member's speech. I gather that he is now talking about some other Vote, and not this Vote.

Mr. TINKER: I moved the reduction of the Vote by 100 men.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Apparently the hon. Member then proceeded to talk about money.

Mr. TINKER: We must have the money to keep the men. Surely the question of the men and the money must go together.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I said when I first rose, unfortunately I did not hear the hon. Member's opening sentences, and possibly I may be mistaken as to what he was doing, but I must point out that he must not discuss on this Vote for men a question which would arise on the other money Votes.

Mr. TINKER: I am moving a reduction in the Vote—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A reduction in the number of men?

Mr. TINKER: Yes, in the number of men, and in dealing with that I am dealing with the supplies for the men, with the increase in the Estimate required to keep that number of men. I put it to you that I am in order in doing that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is dealing with pay, that may be right, but I understood that he was not. Perhaps he will go on and explain what he is talking about.

Mr. TINKER: I accept your Ruling. I was dealing with the increase in the money asked from Parliament to keep the personnel of the Navy. I was leading from that to my other point, that the increase in the Navy Vote amounted to 6 per cent. We are moving this reduction because of that increase, believing that at the present time it is not necessary, but if I am out of order I will drop that point and deal with another. In the Memorandum before us there is a mention of the efforts to salvage M.2. The First Lord did not deal with that subject in his speech, and I would like him to give us an explanation. Another point I wish to raise deals with the fuelling of the Navy. The First Lord told us that one of the Australian cruisers was to be replaced. That cruiser, "Brisbane," is fitted to burn both oil and coal, and I wish to know whether the vessel by which she is to be replaced is to be the same type of cruiser.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now getting definitely outside the Vote. The question of the salvage of M.2 cannot come into the question of the number of men in the Navy.

Mr. TINKER: I seem to be completely out of order whatever point I try to deal with. I do not know how to get back on to the right track again. There are several points that I wanted to bring to the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and if I cannot do so under the heading of the number of men, I do not see how to proceed. I wanted to deal with the fuelling of the Navy, and I do not know whether I should be in order in doing that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, definitely not. That matter arises upon one of the other Votes. Does the hon. Member propose to move his Amendment?

Mr. TINKER: It is difficult to move an Amendment unless one can get arguments to justify it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member's justification has so far applied to another Vote.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, to leave out "90,300," and to insert instead thereof "90,200."
The First Lord, in the statement that he made when the Estimates were before the Committee, referred to the fact that by March next year there was likely to be an increase of 1,000 in the personnel of the Navy. There is an increase in the number of boys admitted by some thousands—from 1,300 to 2,000 odd. We were prepared for this increase, because of the statement which the First Lord made during the discussion in November of last year, when he said that the personnel of the Navy was lower than, in his opinion, it should be. Provision is being made for this increase. Even now some of us on this side of the House fail to see that there is any justification for it.
I know that comparisons are being made with the pre-War and the post-War personnel; the comparison is chiefly with the pre-War personnel. It is held that the personnel of the Navy at that time was about 146,000. At the present time the total personnel is down to just between 89,000 and 90,000. I may be slightly out with regard to the figures, but in comparing the personnel which is provided for in the present Estimates with the tonnage of the Navy at the present time, and comparing the personnel of pre-War days with the tonnage of the Navy at that time, one can see that the present personnel is overwhelming, as compared with pre-War days. Let me give the figures. In 1913, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the total number of officers and men was 139,424, that is to say, round about 140,000. At the present time, as I have said, it is about 90,000. In 1913 the number of battleships and battle-cruisers was 62. Under the London Agreement we are limited, and the reduction in battleships and cruisers has been from 62 to 15. In 1913 we had some 62 cruisers, and at the present time we have about 50 cruisers. We had one aircraft carrier in 1913–14; at the present time we have six. We had a number of what were called armoured coast-defence vessels. In
1913 we had 34 of those vessels, as compared with three at the present time.
Coming to flotilla leaders and destroyers, we had, in 1913, more than double the number which we have at the present time. There were more submarines than at the present time. There is the change which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) in regard to stoker ratings. In 1913, warships of almost all kinds were coal fired. At that time, we had something like 38,000 or 39,000 stoker ratings; at the present time their numbers are reduced to about 18,000. Notwithstanding the change which has brought about the reduction in stoker ratings, and after comparing the post-War tonnage with the pre-War tonnage, and then comparing the number of naval ratings, there is no justification, in the opinion of Members on this side of the House, for the increase which is provided for in this Estimate.
Far be it from my hon. Friends and myself to interfere with changes which are necessary, or with the proper provision for the giving of leave to the personnel of the Navy, but I have in mind a case which I discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, when I called attention to the "Petersfield," which was last in the China waters. I understand that some of the men who make up the personnel of the "Petersfield" are still retained on the China Station, although their leave has been due for some 12 months. That may be largely owing to a lack of personnel which is interfering with leave. I am simply using this illustration to put my point. If it is the case that there is such a shortage of personnel that it prevents the proper exchanges or changes and prevents men from getting their leave at the proper times, then neither my colleagues nor myself would wish to aggravate a situation of that kind. We feel that there is an explanation as to why there should be these increases, and I have no doubt that the First Lord has one which will go very far to prove the point which I am endeavouring to make, which is that, owing to the changes that have taken place, this number of personnel is necessary.
I remember that when I went to the Admiralty, in the position which I was pleased and honoured to occupy for two
years and three months, I attempted to go into this problem, not only with regard to personnel, but also the staff at the Admiralty. One of the arguments which were put to me was that if you attempted to compare the present Navy with the-pre-war Navy, you might as well attempt to compare the pre-war Navy with the Navy in Nelson's time, because the changes had been so rapid. That may account for the increase which is being asked for, but I think that the House and the country would like to hear from the First Lord what justification there is for the increases which are asked for under this Vote.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: This question of the reduction in the personnel of the Navy suggests some points that I would like to raise, but not so much in regard to a reduction in the personnel of the lower deck, but in regard to the excessive number of officers who are employed on the present establishment. A day or two ago, when these Estimates first came forward, I brought this point out, to show that the proportion of officers to men was very much larger now than it was before the War, when the establishment was a very much larger one. When one looks through the list of officers, one notices the excessive number of lieutenant-commanders. There are 1,038 lieutenant-commanders, whereas before the War there were only 710, although the Navy is a smaller one. That is a very large increase.
The result is that commanders are supplanting lieutenant-commanders, and that the lieutenant-commanders are replacing the junior officers and warrant officers. In capital ships sometimes the lieutenant-commander performs the duty of captain of the top which was formerly performed by chief petty officers. The result, I suggest to the First Lord, of lieutenant-commanders being employed on duties that were formerly done by juniors, will be that, as they get promotion, they will be less experienced and tested officers than their predecessors have been in the past. The trouble is that when senior officers take on duties hitherto performed by junior officers, there is a depression all down the ladder, rung after rung, through the officers down to the petty officers.
The number of cadets since the War has seemed to be dealt with on the assumption that we shall have a much larger establishment than is necessary. That means that if in the future, for reasons of economy, the number of officers is cut down, the State will be asked to pay a large sum of money in compensation, and that would be avoided if fewer cadets were entered. Another result is that seamen are not coming forward for employment and for promotion to warrant officers, because they feel that there is no future for them in the Service. Because of the refusal of men to re-engage after more than half earning their long-service pension, the Admiralty has resorted to the entry of short-service telegraphists at lower rates of pay. The final point I would like to mention is that no steps are taken to recruit for the Navy as short-service entrants the young highly-trained officers from the Mercantile Marine who are now unemployed. But cadets are being entered at great expense and with 40 years' service liability.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the First Lord one question. The hon. Member who moved the reduction informed us of the figures far the British Navy to-day and pre-War, and he went on to deal with the matter of the substitution of oil for coal. In order that, both in the House and outside, people may be able to judge as to what is the real position, I would like to ask what are the pre-War figures for the British Navy, the United States Navy, the French Navy and the Japanese Navy as regards personnel, and what are the corresponding modern figures for those navies. If the others have not gone down proportionately with ours, the very difficult question arises whether we have not gone down in personnel very much more than they have, and some of us are not sure whether the reduction in the personnel of our Navy has not been carried too far. If that is the case, then, so far from reducing this Vote to-day, one would like to see it dealt with in another way. I think the country is entitled to know the exact position of our Navy in comparison with other navies. I ask this question, not in any hostile spirit to the First Lord or to the Gov-
ernment, but simply because it is essential that the country should know where we are, as people are so easily misled. If anyone should happen to read the speech of my hon. Friend, they might think that our personnel had not been cut down, but, if my information is right —and I am seeking the confirmation of the First Lord—we have cut down in personnel at a very much higher rate than any other country.

5.48 p.m.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I sympathise with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). It is always difficult to keep in order on the Report stage of these Estimates, and at any other time I shall be very glad to give him all the information that he wants about "M 2" and oil. I am sorry that I cannot do so now, because I should not be in order. The hon. Member fr Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has moved a reduction of the Vote by 100 men, but I think that only a stern sense of duty, and a lively realisation of the maxim that it is the duty of an opposition to oppose, can have led the party opposite to move this reduction. With us the question is one of margin in the number of men. I have explained this question of margin many times, and, if I might put it in one or two sentences, it is that, beyond the men actually necessary to man our ships, there must be a surplus to make good the number of men on leave, the number of men who are sick, the number of men who are doing various forms of training, and, perhaps above all, the number of men who are going out to relieve crews on far distant stations.
I may tell the House that at the present moment, in order to try to get a little more margin and so avoid some of the changes that are going on in His Majesty's ships, we are waiting until ships come home from abroad before we send out relief ships. This is not at all a good arrangement, because it denudes foreign stations of part of their full strength. We have, however, to accept these evils in order to avoid greater ones. One of the paramount evils in the Service is that we have not enough men in the Navy to-day, and this lack of men necessitates constant changes in every ship, especially in the Home Fleet, which means that ships hardly ever
get the chance of settling down, and the officers and men do not get to know each other. Another reason why I would ask the House to oppose the reduction is on account of the men themselves—the comfort of the men, who are always being changed about. In their own terms, they say they are "messed about" a great deal too much. I may say that that is a euphemistic term for what they really think.
Apart from the question of new construction, under the London Naval Treaty the party opposite laid down a replacement programme, and I congratulate them on it; it was a very good programme. We settled, in the London Naval Treaty, to work down to a certain number of ships by the end of 1936, but the party opposite, when they were in power, realised just as much as we did that, particularly if we were working down, we must have a certain number of modern ships, and this programme which the party opposite put forward is purely a replacement programme. They started it is 1930—a much bigger programme than we had in 1928 or 1929—and all honour to them for it. We continued it in 1931, 1932 and 1933, and our big construction Vote to-day is due to the fact that in 1933 we are having to finance the programmes of 1930, 1931 and 1932; and, even if it were not necessary to increase Vote A in order to try and get a better margin, it would be necessary to come to the House to-day to ask for an increase in Vote A in order to man the ships included in the very sensible programme which was put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which we are now carrying out. For that reason I think that a Motion for a reduction comes very ill from the party opposite, and I hope that they will withdraw it. With regard to

the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I am afraid we cannot get the pre-War Navy figures of other countries in time. I think that my hon. Friend is right in his assumption, but I should be sorry to say any more or to give any figures at the moment; I regret that I have not them here.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Have you the post-War figures?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, I think I can get the post-War figures. The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) said that there were too many officers, and particularly too many lieutenant-commanders, and that that is having the effect that junior officers are being squeezed out right down the ladder. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. What he has said is really a paraphrase of what I endeavoured to say in my speech on the Estimates, and I can assure 'him that we have that point very much in mind and are taking active steps as regards the future. I hope that, in view of my explanation, the hon. Gentleman opposite may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The figures for which I asked, and which I think are now being obtained, are very vital and important for the country to know. If the First Lord cannot publish them now, would he publish them in some other way?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I shall be very glad to give them.

Question put, "That '90,300' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 37.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and the Air Force; and that Mr. Duff Cooper, Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell and Sir Philip Sassoon do prepare and bring it in.

Army and AIR Force (Annual) Bill

"to provide during twelve months for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Commander MARSDEN rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late.

Commander MARSDEN: I stood up and actually raised my voice, as also did another hon. Member.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I put the Resolution before the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

6.6 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I should like to refer to the favourable position that the Admiralty is in regarding this Vote. I find, on comparing the Vote as asked for in the Estimate this year with the expenditure of 1923, there is a reduction of nearly £1,000,000, or almost a third of the total Vote. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a sum of some £588,000 provided for expenditure on Singapore, it is
£104,000 less than the amount provided for last year. In dealing with this Vote, I feel sure that the Civil Lord will take into account that we have buildings which were provided during the time when the personnel of the Navy was at its peak. In the various dockyards throughout the world there are buildings capable of dealing with larger numbers of men than we have in the Navy at present and, before any expenditure is incurred for new buildings a scrutiny ought to take place, and I am sure is taking place, with regard to existing buildings which may be more than ample to meet requirements.
Again, I think the Admiralty is fortunate in the sense that last year was the first year that the loans under the old Naval Acts commenced to fall in. In the years from 1895 to 1905 a considerable sum of money was borrowed for the purpose of providing new works urgently required for the Navy. It is not for me to criticise the policy that was adopted at that time, but for the last 40 years we have been paying off interest and principal of moneys borrowed to provide for those works. The only point I desire to make is in regard to the sum that appears last in the list on page 222 of the Naval Estimates, where we are told that there are charges in respect of sums borrowed on Exchequer bonds, and the amount to be repaid during this year is £107,874. Is this going to be the final payment or is there likely to be a continuation for some years? Year after year for the next five or six years there will be substantial sums falling in under the annuities, with the result that in the course of some five or six years a sum of more than £500,000 a year will be saved to this Vote alone. The only point is whether provision will have to be made in future Estimates for the repayment of the £107,000.

6.11 p.m.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): We have, it is true, derived a benefit of almost
£1,000,000 by the reduction in the charges coming under Vote 10 since 1923. The reasons are twofold. One is the very considerable reduction in prices, and the second is that during the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers we were spending a good deal of money in building up oil fuel storage. In regard to what he said about buildings in general, I can assure him that it is almost as difficult to get a, project for the erection of new buildings from the local officers through the Commander-in-Chief, through the Superintending Sea Lords, through me, through the Finance Committee and on to these Estimates as it is for the proverbial camel to get through the needle's eye. Every proposal for new building is subjected to the most careful scrutiny. So far as we can, we make do with the old buildings, but I am certain that the House will realise that there are occasions when it is cheaper to put up a modern structure.
In regard to the point about sub-head O, the annuities that we have to pay on the old naval loans, we have derived benefit this year to the extent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman by the falling in of one of the annuities, but that benefit has been offset by a drop of rather more than that amount in the Appropriation-in-Aid that we receive under this Vote. We realise—and from the taxpayers' point of view we are grateful for it—that during the next few years we are going to obtain a series of progressive reliefs owing to the falling in of some of these annuities. In regard to the particular one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the charge in respect of sums borrowed on Exchequer bonds to the extent of £107,874, I am informed that this payment goes on until 1934 far certain, and will then have to be reconsidered.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

6.41 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved.
The House is familiar with the procedure under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and doubtless has studied the Command Paper which contains the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee with regard to these various subjects. This is rather a miscellaneous Order dealing with a number of topics. It may rightly be described as an adjustment Order. One advantage of having a committee such as the Import Duties Advisory Committee is that from time to time adjust-
ments can readily be made, and the House will see the nature of the adjustments as I briefly call attention to the main topics. The first subject dealt with is carpets, and the Committee's recommendations are clearly set out. There is already a duty on carpets, and the committee say that they have watched the course of imports and employment, and it appears that the cheaper grade of carpet is still coming into this country in very substantial quantities from European countries. They are of the opinion that the British carpet industry requires encouragement and they recommend, therefore, that assistance should be given by means of a specific duty. The particulars of imports are available, and there can be no hardship because carpets are a subject upon which there is a drawback scheme in existence. If a duty is paid on the importation of a carpet and it is subsequently desired to re-export the carpet, provision is made by the Order of 1st September, 1932, the Import Duties Drawback (No. 1) Order, for the drawback to be procured.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member mentioned that the committee had kept its eye on the progress of employment in the industry. Has he any figures to indicate whether there has been a drop in employment?

Dr. BURGIN: I will see whether the figures deal with the actual number of persons employed. The figures of the imports show that there has been an increase, and the fact that a large number of foreign carpets of the cheaper quality have been imported rather tends to show that the demand for the home-made carpet has been less. I do not know, but I will make inquiries as to the actual number of persons employed. The next topic dealt with is blocks of amorphous carbon for lining electric furnaces, the carbon rod which goes down through the furnace to make the contact. The carbon blocks are used in the making of aluminium, and have been exempted from key industry duty because they are imported from Germany, but the effect of exempting them from key industry duty is automatically to render them subject to quite a considerable duty under the Import Duties Act. So there is a reduction of duty suggested by the committee —an adjustment again.
There is another entirely different class of articles, dried apples, dried peaches, dried pears and dried nectarines. Again the Advisory Committee recommended a reduction. There are two points here; first, that there should be a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty. Apparently the trade find it a convenience to have dried apples and peaches and pears and nectarines treated in a similar way to other imported dried fruits, and consequently the Committee in this ease recommend that there be a reduction and that there be a specific duty. Of these particular dried fruits 75 per cent come from the United States of America. The remainder come from Dominion sources, and of course are not subject to these duties. We then pass to the small item of dates, where again there is a reduction. The dates come from France and from Iraq. At present they are subject to a 25 per cent. duty, and inasmuch as dates, although treated, are substantially only treated by the sun in being dried, it is felt that they ought to be subject only to 10 per cent. So there is a suggestion of a reduction in that form.
There are two more subjects, manufactures of flax and hemp, and then the whole category of wire. In the case of manufactures of flax and hemp this is an adjustment. Instead of linen as described in the Order it ought to be flax. So the Advisory Committee think that the word "flax" would be more correct than the word "linen" and they take the opportunity of an Order of this kind to correct a mistake.
We now come to that part of the Order which, perhaps, interests the House most, relating to iron and steel wire nails and iron and steel wire netting. There is quite a family of imports connected with iron and steel. The Advisory Committee are very frank about their recommendations, which will be found on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the White Paper. They say that they have received numerous recommendations with regard to the inadequacy of the duty and that there has been a vast deterioration of the British wire industry. The reasons are set out; the drop in the tonnage is set out too; and the Committee come to the conclusion that the duties at present applicable to these products are inadequate to meet abnormal conditions. The House has already passed legislation
dealing with abnormal importations, and is entirely converted to the idea that an abnormal set of circumstances merits abnormal treatment. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, watching the progress of the iron and steel wire industry, have come to the conclusion, as the result of the evidence and of the inquiries they have made, that the duties at present imposed are inadequate to meet abnormal conditions. They point out that it is quite useless reorganising the iron and steel industry if an integral part, the iron and steel wire industry, is left out. That depends now on foreign sources. So there must be an encouragement of the British iron and steel wire industry.
The recommendation in this case again is that there should be a specific duty. The House will appreciate that at a time of tumbling prices an ad valorem duty is a clumsy and awkward method of calculation. It is necessary to revise it every time there is a fluctuation, in order that the percentage may be calculated. It is far easier, in dealing with such subjects, that there should be a specific duty of so much per ton weight and then the whole world knows what the duty is. Consequently the Advisory Committee recommend that there should be a specific duty for wire nails. At present it is 20 per cent. They recommend that the duty should now be £3 a ton. I have got an exact calculation of what that involves, and it is roughly 25 per cent. For galvanised wire netting they recommend that the rate of specific duty should be £8 a ton. That is increasing the 20 per cent. ad valorem to 30 per cent. I want the House to note the comparatively small increase and not to be alarmed by figures like £3 and £8 a ton. In point of fact the 20 per cent. is increased to 25 per cent. in the one case, and to 30 per cent. in the other. The average value of all wire netting in 1931 was approximately £20 a ton. It may therefore be said that this miscellaneous Order reduces the duty in two cases, on dates and carbon electrodes; it converts an ad valorem to a specific duty with very little change of incidence in the case of certain dried fruits; and it imposes new or additional duties in the case of hemp, carpets, wire, wire nails and wire netting.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this Order. I do not think he has added very much to the explanation that we have in the White Paper, but he has thrown a very bright light on the mind of the really up-to-date Liberal. It is interesting to have that light shine on that particular section of what we might call the amorphous bloc of the present Government. In the explanation of the first part of this Order we had a delightful statement. We are to have taxes put on carpets, and we are told there is no hardship because there is a drawback for re-export. There is no consideration of the consumer at all. The really up-to-date Liberal has left the consumer far behind. No one on the Government Benches has learned his Tariff lesson better than the Parliamentary Secretary.
The 20 per cent. duty on carpets has not proved insufficient. As a matter of fact the manufacturers have done quite nicely. What has happened is that the British manufacturer now thinks that he would like to go out and capture the trade for a different type of carpet altogether. That is the cheaper carpet made for the workers. In the ordinary heyday of individualism anyone going into a comparatively new business would have taken some risks, but to-day manufacturers must have full protection and full profits in the earlier stages; they must have full shelter while they build up their business. Therefore we are to have on handmade cheap carpets a duty of 4s. 6d. a square yard, and 9d. on other kinds. I am informed by those in the trade that the effect will be to keep the foreign carpets out altogether. At the present time the quality of the hand-made carpets made at home is not equal to that of the foreign. It is quite clear that the whole of this burden is to be placed on the poorest people. It is interesting how this Government decides at every possible point to raise the cost of living of the poorest people. We have no information whatever given to us about the organisation of the carpet industry, but according to my information from a leading carpet shop this 20 per cent. duty has produced no advance in quality and no increase in quantity in the home-made carpets. This is simply one of those cases of "Ask and you shall be given,"
and obviously there is no interest whatever in the consumer.
We come to another item, dried apples, dried peaches, dried pears and dried nectarines. Again we have heard nothing about the consumer. But this thing has to be done because it is a convenience to the trade. That is always the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He is interested only in the manufacturer and the convenience of the trade, und he never thinks of the consumer. Then we come to a proposal which shows that even that great pundit, the chairman of this Advisory Committee, and his colleagues, can err. They made a mistake with regard to dates. They put on an additional duty because they thought that dates were subject to an artificial process. I am glad that that duty has come off now, but 12 months is a long time for the Committee to take in order to find the mistakes. The next item, the tax on hemp, does not concern me. There is a rather important item—iron And steel wire. Here, again, we have one of those interesting statements. We are told that the trade has fallen, and that the imports have increased. It is admitted that great deal of the problem is due to world conditions, but we are now told that in this, as in so many other things, we are not going to overtake it by increased consumption, but by keeping out foreign supplies. Our people intend to do a foreign trade as well as A home trade, and, as they get this stuff off the market here, they intend to invade the export market. They will be no better off.
The future of the wire industry is said to be closely bound up with the iron and steel industry. The position is exactly the same as under the Agricultural Marketing Bill. They are given the jam before they are given the pill. It is interesting to notice that one thing to be taxed is wire-netting, which is used by the farmer who is at the last gasp. The farmer is not going to get a year or so for recovery under the Agricultural Marketing Bill before being charged more for his wire-netting. It is the same with nails. Everything is to be done preceding the reconstruction of the industry. We see quantities of little papers on import duties. They are very familiar. We get taxes like this about once a fortnight,
and they Are generally a mix-up of things. We see quite clearly that each trade comes along and brings before this committee its hard cases, not due to any specific causes, but due to the general world conditions as stated on page 8. You get contraction of the world market, and it is thought that you are going to increase consumption by raising prices to the home consumer. We have the same thing over and over again from Conservative and Liberal Protectionists.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: And Labour Protectionists.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not recognise any one sitting on that side of the House as being Labour. They always increase the price of these commodities. They are not going to increase the purchasing power of the people, and yet they expect more to be consumed. The policy brought out in yesterday's Debate is brought out again in this White Paper—all these little petty taxes. Their only effect can be to hamper trade and raise the cost of living for the poorest. They will not do anything to improve trade or industry in this country. We therefore oppose this Order.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned, in particular, apples, peaches, pears and nectarines. He said that this was a lowering of the duty. I want to know in what particular way is it a lowering of the duty. This specific duty is to make producers sure of a certain amount of duty. It is a mere matter of calculation that cannot be justified for all time. The specific duty, as a percentage of cost, will be decided by the lowering or heightening of the price of the goods. Is not this to give a sure, definite duty for all time 4 The second question relates to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement re wire products that since the duties were put on imports have increased. It is rather interesting to note that, on page 8 of this White Paper, the only figures refer to the Census of Production figures and trade returns for 1924 and 1930. They do not relate at all to the time since the duty was imposed. The Parliamentary Secretary will see that a paragraph on that page says quite definitely that this is a result of a simultaneous
decline of exports and imports of every class of wire product. According to the evidence of manufacturers and merchants the shrinkage—not the extension of imports—has not been accompanied by improvement in the position of the home producer. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would give an explanation.

7.8 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I want to refer only to one part of the Order—the question of Import Duties on carpets. Contrary to the somewhat imaginary statements—he will forgive me for using that expression—which have been made by the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) as to unemployment in the carpet trade and the effect of the duties, he may be interested to know that at the time the 50 per cent. duty was placed on carpets, at the beginning of last year, there was a revival of employment, and that the total of those unemployed fell rapidly. The position of imports also was very interesting. During the period January to April, 1932, when the 50 per cent. duty was in operation, the imports were almost entirely drawn from four countries, India, Persia, China and Russia. In April, 1932, taking that one month alone, 164,000 square yards were imported from all countries, but only 10,800 square yards of this total came from countries other than the four I have mentioned.
In May, 1932, on the other hand, when the 50 per cent, duty had been reduced to 20 per cent., the imports from the other countries rose from 10,800 square yards to 68,000 square yards. That increase came immediately upon the drop from a duty of 50 per cent, to one of 20 per cent. Those 68,000 square yards were out of 208,000 square yards imported. That shows at once exactly what happened when the duty was reduced. To carry the story forward—the imports from these other countries continued to increase until in July the figure of 114,000 square yards was reached out of total imports of 251,000 square yards, and the maximum was reached in September when the imports from the "other" countries were 306,000 square yards. This will show what was the result in the first place of what has been described to-night as a "prohibitive" duty, that is, an almost complete stoppage of imports with
a 50 per cent. duty and a steady increase after the duties were reduced.
I do not rise however to oppose this recommendation. I do not think the carpet trade desire that that should be done. They felt very disappointed indeed when the duty was reduced to as low as 20 per cent. They thought it was too big a reduction, and the figures I have given show quite clearly that they were right, and what the effect upon employment was. They felt at that time, and most people who follow the figures carefully will feel, that the reduction should not have been made so drastically to 20 per cent, at once. I want to give one other set of figures which is interesting. In January, 1932, when the 50 per cent. duty was in operation the total number of square yards imported from "other" countries—that is, again excluding the four I have mentioned, namely, India, Persia, China and Russia—was only 17,000 square yards out of a total of 176,000 square yards. Compare that figure with that for January of this year which was 95,000 square yards out of a total of 246,000. There are two points in the Order made by the Import Advisory Committee which, I think, are important. There is the question of the 9d. per square yard duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse asked why that duty should be imposed. The point is really met if the House will allow me to read a quotation from one of the most prominent carpet manufacturers in this country:
There is, however, one valuable effect it may have, that is, to prevent the fraud which has been undoubtedly taking place in the declared value of carpets. Even in February of this year the declared value of Brussels and Wiltons for duty was 2s. 11d. per square yard and anybody in the trade knows that such a figure is utterly absurd.
It is simply a way to evade payment of the proper duty. Values have been declared which are far below the real figures. That is the reason the committee decided in this way. I am bound to say, although I do not in any way oppose this change, that it is the view of those most expert in the trade that although the 9d. will have an excellent effect in preventing fraud, and avoiding values being declared which are ridiculous in the Customs returns, it is not likely to be of great use to the carpet
trade in this country, or greatly to encourage the manufacture of cheap carpets and prevent the importation from countries where standards of labour are so low.
To maintain the standard of life in this country the trade require a larger duty. I do not carry the matter further than that. Even although the proposals are welcome from the point of view I have expressed, the opinion of the carpet trade is still that if this country wants the cheapest kind of carpets manufactured here—and they can well be manufactured here and sold at prices as low as, or even below, the prices at which similar imported carpets are offered—a larger duty will be required. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Limehouse regarding the position of this consumer, that is easy to answer. Since duties were first imposed, the employment in the carpet trade has improved very considerably. As far as prices to the consumer are concerned, I would challenge the hon. Gentleman to show me any grade of carpet in ordinary demand which is dearer than it was before the duties were put on. The duties have been of value both to the consumer and to the worker.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the hon. Member any figures to back up the statement that there has been an increase in employment or rather a decrease in unemployment in the carpet-making industry? I visited his constituency recently, and, while my visit had nothing to do with the carpet industry directly, I naturally got to know something about it. There is a big carpet factory in my own Division, and therefore I am interested in the subject, and I would like to have some definite evidence that employment in the industry has improved.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am well aware that the hon. Member did me the honour to visit Kidderminster recently, and, as he said, his visit was not directly concerned with the subject of carpets. But I hope he found there as intelligent, as generous and, shall I say, as enthusiastic a welcome as I find when I speak at Kidderminster. I am told, in fact, that the hon. Member was welcomed with open arms by an audience seven-eighths of whom were staunch Conservatives and who were delighted to hear him. If the hon. Member by his ques-
tion means have I at this moment exact figures, my answer is "No." I did not come here prepared with the figures because I thought it was generally known by those in the trade—and he and I are, as he says, possibly the only Members who represent constituencies where carpets are made to any extent—that there had been a considerable improvement in employment. I go further and say that, speaking generally, there is very little unemployment to-day in the carpet trade and what little there is, is in the cheap grade of carpets for which it may be necessary, as I have said, if we want to maintain the standards of the working people in that trade, to have an even larger duty than at present. Speaking generally, I think I can make the definite statement that there has been a marked improvement in employment in the industry. It is probably one of the more fortunate, if not the most fortunate of the industries in this country in the matter of employment at the present time, and that is due largely to the action of the Government in putting on duties. Although I welcome this 9d. duty from the point of view of evading possible fraud, I think it will be found that even a larger duty will be required if we are to go to the last limit of making in our own factories the carpets which our people here want.

7.18 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Very naturally the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) stands for carpets. This is going to be apparently a characteristic of the House of Commons in the future that people will represent industries rather than geographical constituencies. That is the inevitable and natural corollary of the new system of tariffs.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I hope the hon. Member does not wish to give the House a wrong impression. Although the division which I have the honour to represent is called Kidderminster it does not consist only of the town of Kidderminster, because I have some 200 square miles of agricultural land in my constituency and many other important industries.

Sir P. HARRIS: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has very varied interests and that his energies are by no means confined to the question of carpets. I admit also that the subject of carpets
leaves me largely unmoved. I do not suggest that they are luxuries but they are the kind of articles with which one can dispense if necessary. At the same time, there is something rather mean about this specific duty. It is an attempt to get hold of the cheaper end of the trade. There is a low duty on the expensive article and a high duty on the cheaper article. I happen to represent a constituency where carpets are looked upon as a luxury. The ordinary working-class over-crowded tenant may have an occasional rug at the fireplace but for the most part—and this is of interest to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace)—they are content with linoleum and oilcloth floor coverings. It is only occasionally, when they are offered by a costermonger or in the street market, that the housewife has the opportunity of getting some of these wicked and evil, one might almost say naughty foreign goods from the East or from the Continent. It is bad policy and a wrong principle to apply a much higher rate to the cheaper goods, than is applied to the more expensive luxury articles like Persian rugs and famous French carpets.
I turn to another part of this interesting document. It is difficult to follow the ramifications of this committee, but I wish to draw attention to a matter which affects my own constituency. Bethnal Green is a district where furniture is manufactured. It is not 'expensive furniture; not the stuff which is to be seen in Maples', but furniture of a lower quality. For some reason, this Committee are distressed by the cheapness of furniture springs and they are out to raise the price and to put a special duty on what constitutes one of the raw materials of a very important industry. That industry is going through a difficult period. Owing to the bad times factories are closing down and there is unemployment and bankruptcy in that industry. People are making old furniture serve for a longer time; some, indeed, are more inclined to sell up their old sticks than to buy new furniture.
Now the Government come along with a proposal to tax the wire springs used in this industry. The timber used is already subject to an extra tax and there is general complaint in the furniture trade, not only on the manufacturing side, but in the wholesale and retail distribu-
tive side as well. We had the example of Waring and Gillow's the other day, and there has been another case since to show the state of affairs in that trade. It is all a matter of the sensitiveness of this trade to the present slump. Furniture is the sort of thing that people do without, and, when prices are high and wages low, furniture making is the first industry to feel the reaction.
I am not satisfied that these duties can be justified. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what is the decision of the Government on these duties, in their relation to the forthcoming World Economic Conference. Supposing that in the course of the bargaining, Germany and Czechoslovakia and other countries—I believe a lot of these cheap carpets come from Central Europe—are prepared to make concessions to us, are we bound by the decision of this committee or can we lower the duty? I would like to ask the hon. Member for Kidderminster, if foreign countries were prepared to make real concessions and to go a long way towards freeing trade and letting our goods in at a lower rate of duty, would he be satisfied to abandon the specific duties now being imposed? In the same way, in regard to wire nails and wire springs and so on, will the Government have a, free hand to go behind this committee and reduce these duties in return for concessions from foreign countries in the matter of duties on cotton goods and so forth? Will they be able to withdraw these duties, or will they have to go before the committee again, or, alternatively, will they feel themselves bound by the decision of the House to-night in passing these duties?

7.26 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) raised what I think is an important issue. I have no doubt that he hoped to amuse the House by his reference to the present fiscal views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I do not propose to deal with that matter because my hon. Friend is perfectly well able to look after himself. But I think the House should observe that we are adjusting ourselves and our economic views to the obvious economic needs of the present situation, whereas the hon. Member for Limehouse and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West
Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) appeared to have learned nothing whatever, even from a survey of the direful industrial situation in which the country finds itself. These hon. Members are still speaking in that voice that breathed over the Free Trade Eden in the closing days of the 19th century. They appear to have learned nothing; their policy still is to leave your markets wide open, to welcome stuff from foreign countries, to bring in cheap goods until your own people have no work and are not able to buy even the cheap goods when they do come here.
The hon. Member for Limehouse dealt with the question of drawn wire, wire nails and wire netting. He overlooked the important fact that these three things are manufactured articles. If I want to make wire I have to buy the steel billet, subject it to a process of rolling and re-rolling and annealing, and put quite a lot of work into it. When I have made the wire, I can make either nails or netting. What has been the position so far, under our fiscal arrangements, of the manufacturer making any one of these three articles? On the billet imported into this country which is the raw material of his industry, he had to pay 33⅓ per cent., whereas, the finished article which he was making and selling in competition with Belgium and other countries, was protected only to the extent of 20 per cent. This Order is simply a matter of elementary justice to the manufacturers and the workmen who have been engaged in the production of these articles and the House would be doing not only an injustice to those occupations but an injustice to itself if it did not commend the Order most heartily.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to make use of this opportunity, like the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for a general diatribe on the question of Free Trade and Protection. I think it is wrong for a man to use the House of Commons for the purpose of riding his own hobby.

Sir P. HARRIS: What about Socialism?

Mr. MAXTON: I propose to deal on this occasion with the subject matter of this Order. Thank God I am neither a
doctrinaire Free Trader nor a doctrinaire Tariff Reformer. I certainly am not a worshipper of Sir George May, the Chairman of the Committee which makes these recommendations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who appointed him?"] I admit that I was a supporter of the Labour Government which pulled him out of the obscurity of commerce into the bright sunlight of politics, but my hon. Friend will surely admit that never for one moment did I assist that process in any way. I rise to deal with a matter of specific interest to my constituency, namely, the carpet industry. In my constituency we have a large and efficient carpet factory, run by a firm that has been in the business for many, many years. I know that the belief held by the supporters of the Government, that tariffs in general were going to improve the employment conditions in this country, has not been borne out by the facts. The unemployment figures in general have gone up since the imposition of tariffs, but we are constantly informed that in a specific industry the employment figures have improved. I think the House of Commons, when it is being asked to approve the application of a particular industry either for the first imposition of a tariff or for the variation of a tariff already imposed, ought to be provided with something more than vague generalities as to the employment position.

Mr. J. WALLACE: Is the hon. Member aware of the increase of employment in the particular carpet industry in his own constituency?

Mr. MAXTON: I am not here to give the Government information about their policy. I know the position in my own constituency very well, but I am asking—

Sir J. WAR DLAW-MILNE: Without asking or giving the Government any information, the hon. Member is surely well aware of the figures of the tremendous drop in the imports of carpets? These carpets that are not imported have been supplied and must have been made by someone, and that means employment in this country.

Mr. MAXTON: I listened with the very greatest attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir
J. Wardlaw-Milne), and I noted the care with which he referred to the documents in his possession, which I assumed to be authoritative documents, but I heard no word fall from his lips that indicated that one additional person had come into employment in the carpet industry. He spoke in general terms, and he produced figures to deal with the changes that had taken place in the imports, but not one figure did he give, nor did the Minister, to show what changes had taken place in the employment part of the industry throughout the country.
I want the Minister to convey this to the Imports Advisory Committee, and to its distinguished chairman, that at least one Member of the House of Commons wants some precise facts put before him. We were always told that tariffs in this country were to be worked scientifically. I do not pose as being a scientist, but I know enough of some of the exact sciences to know that you cannot be scientific unless you have definite data, and we are asked here, on absolutely no data whatever, to vary to a very considerable degree the import duty that is presently offered to the carpet industry. If hon. Members will note the recommendation for an increase, it is for the purpose of persuading certain people, who might put down new plant to shut out carpets coming into this country, before the plant is there in this country to produce new carpets of a, similar kind. They want their market guaranteed even before they make a start with the establishment of a factory. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, I will read the recommendation:
Recently, however, British manufacturers have been endeavouring to secure a greater share of the home market in certain of the cheaper grades of carpeting, which are still imported in substantial quantities from European countries. We think that this development, which to some extent calls for capital expenditure in laying down suitable specialised machinery.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Read the next words, "merits encouragement." There is nothing in that to show that it has not started.

Mr. MAXTON: It is not there anyhow. It is not in print, and I did not hear about it on my flying visit to Kidderminster.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: You would not.

Mr. MAXTON: The recommendation goes on:
It appears to us that with some further assistance British manufacturers should be able to produce these cheap grades at competitive prices.
I am not opposing this Motion. I hope that I have watched the whole process of the operation of import duties in this country with as open and as scientific a mind as the Government allege that they have had in applying them, but I submit that the House of Commons, before granting to this particular industry greater protection than it has got now, ought to have some evidence that the employment position in the industry has definitely improved; and up to date we have not had that evidence.

7.37 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I think I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) the very information for which he is asking. Certainly, as far as the county of Midlothian is concerned, where we make carpets of all kinds, the example of the duties that we have there relating to carpets is one of the easiest in which to give him the returns for which he asks. The duty that was first imposed, that is to say, the duty on the higher and the medium grades of carpet, has worked admirably so far as the experience of the factories with which I am concerned goes to show. I was over those factories before the last election, when they were on short time, and I have been over them from time to time from then until a few weeks ago, and I was given the following figures by one of the persons in charge of the factory in Bonnyrigg. He said: "In the first place, the wages in our key department, including rises in salary and the extra hands employed, represent an increase of 150 per cent." He also said: "The employment throughout these factories has increased by 50 per cent., and in fact, since the time the first duty came on, there has not been a carpet worker unemployed on the registers of Bonnyrigg."

Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. and gallant Member give me plain, straightforward figures rather than percentages?

Captain RAMSAY: I cannot tell the hon. Member the exact numbers of men, but I will get the figures for my hon. Friend and give them to him.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is there an Employment Exchange in Bonnyrigg?

Captain RAMSAY: Yes, subsidiary to the one at Loanhead. This brings us to the point of the duty in contemplation here, that is to say, the duty on the lowest grade carpets. It was found that, although the duties on the medium and high grade carpets worked admirably, with the results that I have already given to my hon. Friend, the duty on the lowest grade carpet was not working. The very cheap carpets continued to come into this country in increasing quantities after the 50 per cent. duty had been lowered to 20 per cent., and I was among those who made continual representations to the Government in order to try to get the duty on this particular grade of carpet raised. Therefore, having regard to the outstanding success of the other duties, I for one beg to congratulate the Government on the excellent provision that they are putting forward here, and to say that those for whom I am concerned in the carpet trade welcome this Motion and will be duly grateful, and that they consider that it will not be long before the results will be in evidence.

7.41 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the last speaker on the subject of the carpet industry. In Dundee—and I think the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) will agree with me—the carpet. industry has been saved by these duties. I think that everybody who has studied the difficulties of the jute trade will agree when I say that the only part of the trade that has really had substantial help is the carpet part. I have been into the different places to find out for myself how exactly it has helped the carpet industry. In some factories the industry has been revived, and it was found, even in Dundee, that with all the people who had been working in the carpet industry and who had been unemployed not sufficient could be found, and we had to go outside Dundee, to different parts of Scotland and even to Kidderminster, to find workers who could teach the generation that was growing up how these carpets could be made. I think this is an important matter. We want to keep the trade in this country, and we want to enlarge it and to give a chance to our own people to make this type of cheap
carpet that has been made only on the. Continent of late.
I know that in the city of Dundee there is this enormous amount of unemployment, and it may not seem to have been much affected, but it is absolutely clear, and can be proved, that that branch of the trade that is interested in the carpet industry has enormously improved, and many people have been brought back to work. We are affected not only by the actual making of carpets in Dundee, but by the supply of yarn for places elsewhere. If the industry in Dundee is not to be protected, it must die, and you will put more people unemployed on the streets. Our only hope is in some measure of protection, some idea of putting up a breakwater against this flood of cheap European carpets that are coming in, unless you are content to drive our people into unemployment. I do not believe that of late the duty has been big enough really to work, but now we have a chance of a bigger duty, and I only wish we could have gone further still and been given greater protection. I am certain that if we had that greater protection, we should have got back hundreds into the trade. We are glad, at any rate, for the extent of protection that we have got, and I do not think anyone connected with the industry can possibly disagree with the fact that this is a step in the right direction.

7.44 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but perhaps, having regard to the turn which the discussion has taken, I may be allowed to reply. I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for having called attention to the employment side of tariff proposals. I am inclined to agree that they stand or fall by that test, and we are glad to give to the House the figures which I regret I had not available when I first spoke. The difficulty is that statistics are usually not available to compare like with like. The situation in the carpet trade at a given moment will usually only be found in statistics at the end of the calendar year, or some other selected period. Since 1931 we have had the Abnormal Importations Act, proceeding with one rate of duty that had then to be altered by the Import Duties Act, so that it is a little difficult to find an exact parallel.
I will first of all give the diminution in unemployment. That is not the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but it has a bearing on the general position. In October, 1931, taking the entire carpet trade—that is to say, the carpet section of the textile trade and also that part of the carpet trade which deals with jute, which is separately classified—the percentage of workers unemployed was 17.2. In December, 1932, which is the nearest month that I could get from the information accessible, the percentage of unemployment was 8.3. I do not want to leave the matter, however, on the negative side of unemployment. I want to deal with the figures of employment. Here I can only give the wool carpet section of the textile trade. I have not the figures available for the jute section of the carpet trade. The total number employed in the carpet section of the wool textile industry, as shown by the Ministry of Labour Gazette would appear to show an increase, between August, 1931, and January, 1933, of something like 10 per cent. It is desirable that on future occasions when these Orders are introduced, specific figures should be given in regard to employment and unemployment, and as far as it rests with me that will be done.
The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) asked a question in regard to the World Economic Conference. As far as I know, there has been only one instance of a duty recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee which carried with it any period of time. That was the iron and steel recommendation, which had a two years' period of time. As far as I know, the whole of the Orders are subject to the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932, under which the Treasury may by Order direct that a duty cease to apply. I may tell the hon. Baronet at once that if, as a result of the World Economic Conference, it is possible to arrange a mutual reduction in tariffs, if it is possible in bargaining with other countries to find that the adjustment of a tariff to a lower kind would meet with some corresponding advantage from any foreign country, there is nothing to prevent His Majesty's Government from adopting that policy. It is the aim and the declared policy of the Government to use these tariff proposals
in that way, with a view to increasing trade.
We had a valuable and well-informed speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) dealing with carpets. The only other question that I have to answer was that put by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) who asked why we called the duty in regard to dried fruits a reduction, and why I suggested that imports of wire netting had increased when they had decreased. I claim that the proposal in regard to dried fruits is a reduction. The hon. Member asks: "Why?" Is it not really to be a specific duty, and is it not trying to make that specific duty permanent as compared with an ad valorem duty, which will vary with the price?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I did not ask "why." I asked if it was lower. I was asking for information.

Dr. BURGIN: I had no intention of broadening my "why." I appreciated that the hon. Member was asking for information, and my information is this: If goods are subject to an additional duty of 15 per cent. and you are proposing to take that duty off, then the first part of the operation is a reduction. These goods are for the moment subject, to a 25 per cent. Duty—10 per cent. plus 15 per cent. The first recommendation of the Committee is that we should take off the 15 per cent. Call it a substitution if you like, a substitution after subtraction. Having done that, it is proposed to put on a specific duty, but in point of fact that specific duty does not amount to more than the whole of the 25 per cent. Therefore, I think it is right to describe it as a reduction. You may describe it as a reduction or as a substitution if you like. In regard to the importation of wire netting, to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South, referred, if I said that the imports of wire netting had increased, then it was a great mistake, because they have considerably fallen. I have the figures here. The lion. Member is right. The imports of wire netting have substantially fallen. hope that with this explanation the House will be good enough to give us the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 47.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bornays, Robert
Buchan, John


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Blindell, James
Burnett, John George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bossom, A. C.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter


Anetruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, Brendan
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Brass, Captain Sir William
Castlereagh, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briant, Frank
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Broadbant, Colonel John
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Christie, James Archibald


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Remer, John R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jamieson, Douglas
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Conant, R. J. E.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cooper, A. Dull
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kimball, Lawrence
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crocke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Cross, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lees-Jones, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Denville, Alfred
Levy, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Slater, John


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Drewe, Cedric
Loder, Captain J, de Vera
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dunglass, Lord
Lymington, Viscount
Somerset, Thomas


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Soper, Richard


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, Adam
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fermoy, Lord
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spens, William Patrick


Forestier-walker, Sir Leolin
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Fox. Sir Glfford
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stevenson, James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Gibson, Charles Granville
Milne, Charles
Strauss, Edward A.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gower, Sir Robert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Summersby, Charles H.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morrison, William Shephard
Sutcliffe, Harold


Granville, Edgar
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Munro, Patrick
Templeton, William P.


Graves, Marjorie
Nail, Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-T.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hales, Harold K.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pearson, William G.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hanbury, Cecil
Peat, Charles U.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
White, Henry Graham


Hartland, George A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Whyte, Jardine Beil


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Walter James


Hopkinson, Austin
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rankin, Robert



Hornby, Frank
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horobin, Ian M.
Rea, Walter Russell
Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)



Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, David D. (County Down)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)




Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hicks, Ernest George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James



Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[7.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Peat, Charles U.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Percy, Lord Eustace


Albery, Irving James
Greene, William P. C.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Apsley, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ray, sir William


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Atkinson, Cyril
Hales, Harold K.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hartland, George A.
Robinson, John Roland


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rosbotnam, Sir Samuel


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Borodale, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Hornby, Frank
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Horobin, Ian M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Salt, Edward W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jamieson, Douglas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Jennings, Roland
Savory, Samuel Servington


Browne, Captain A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Scone, Lord


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ker, J. Campbell
Selley, Harry R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burnett, John George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Slater, John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Law, Sir Alfred
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Somerset, Thomas


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Clarry, Reginald George
Lees-Jones, John
Soper, Richard


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Lannox-Boyd, A. T.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Levy, Thomas
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Llewellin, Major John J,
Spens, William Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stevenson, James


Cooke, Douglas
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Copeland, Ida
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Strauss, Edward A.


Cowan, D. M.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Cranborne, Viscount
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Summersby, Charles H,


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Templeton, William P.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thompson, Luke


Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Denman, Hon. R D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Denville, Alfred
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Dickie, John P.
Martin, Thomas B.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Donner, P. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Drewe, Cedric
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, Hubert John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Milne, Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Dunglass, Lord
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wells, Sydney Richard


Elmley, Viscount
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Munro, Patrick
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
North, Captain Edward T.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nunn, William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Gillett, Sir George Matterman
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.



Glossop, C. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peake, Captain Osbert
Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pearson, William G.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, south)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rothschild, James A. de


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [16TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

"1. That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £97 is. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
248
2. That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £187,180 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
3. That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, the sum of £208,772,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL,

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, one thousand nine hundred and thirty three, and one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

6.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill designed to facilitate the recovery in other countries of sums for which judgments have been obtained in this country. The Bill is based upon the idea that if we can secure the reciprocal advantages from other countries we shall by means of Orders in Council put the Bill when it becomes an Act into effect in this country. It will not need any radical alteration in the substance of our law. At the present time in this country, by means of a process which at first sight sounds a little superfluous but which is really very direct, we do enforce judgments obtained in foreign countries. It is true that a new action must be begun, but the defences to the action are very limited. They are such defences as that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, or by methods contrary to natural justice, or is based upon some
course of action contrary to public policy. But in general, once the action is begun in this country upon the foreign judgment, judgment is given by our courts almost as a matter of course. In foreign countries, however, the same facilities do not exist for enforcing judgments obtained in this country. Very often business men in this country have to pursue the defendant, their debtor, to other countries where his assets are to be found. That has been the subject of complaint among commercial men for a long time.
A step in the process of facilitating the recovery of judgment debts outside Great Britain was taken in 1920 as the result of a report of a committee presided over by Lord Sumner. It was a committee appointed by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Finlay, but the experiment was then confined to the Dominions. The scheme is, that by registering in a foreign country, or in this country, as the case may be, a judgment obtained in the other country, the registered judgment has exactly the same effect as a judgment obtained in an ordinary action. Part II of the Act of 1920 applies only to the Dominions. The plan has worked well. It was a reciprocal scheme, that is to say the scheme applied only to those Dominions who gave us the same advantages, and it was applied to a Dominion by an Order in Council. It is now proposed by the Act to extend the scheme and to apply it to the cases of foreign countries. Some of them have been consulted as to whether they would be prepared to fall in with such an arrangement. They have indicated their assent, and the Bill carries out the proposals.
There is one Clause in the Bill which is interesting. It is Clause 9. The intention of that Clause is to give the Government of this country, not so much a weapon as an inducement which will bring other countries into a frame of mind to agree to join in a reciprocal plan under the Act. The Clause in question empowers an Order in Council to be made refusing to the foreign country who will not join in the scheme the rights now enjoyed in respect of the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Bill is one which naturally contains a certain number of technical details, but I think that they are not difficult to follow. It has been prepared as the result of a report of a
committee presided over by Lord Justice Greer, and a number of eminent persons served upon the committee. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) sitting there; he was a member of the committee. The report was a unanimous report, and if the Bill, which has come from another place, is accepted by the House, it will meet a long-felt grievance, and I believe that it will be to the advantage of the commercial community in this country.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We on this side of the House entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in giving this Bill a Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for to-morrow.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for regulating the importation and sale of agricultural products and for organising the production of secondary agricultural products, to amend the law with respect to the marketing of agricultural products, and to make further provision in connection with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State in connection with the Market Supply Committee to be appointed under the said Act; and
(ii) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State, by virtue of the said Act, in connection with any Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission or committee of investigation constituted or appointed under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, as amended by the said Act of the present Session; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum which the board administering a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, or a scheme under the said
251
Act of the present Session may, in accordance with the last-mentioned Act, have paid to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State, being a sum certified to represent the expenses of any such Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission attributable to the preparation of the scheme or to the investigation of any matter affecting the operation of the scheme."—(King's Recommendation. signified.)—[Major Elliot.]

6.26 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The Financial Resolution provides, as the Committee will see, firstly, that the Market Supply Committee shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Secondly, that expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with reorganisation commissions shall be paid for out of moneys provided by Parliament: I would point out that it is stated elsewhere in the Bill how these moneys are to be recovered. Thirdly, that committees of investigation shall be paid for out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. No power is taken to recover those expenses, as clearly it is desirable that the investigators of such a scheme should not look to the authors of the scheme as its paymasters. These are the objects of the Financial Resolution, and as the matter was fully debated in the House this week, and last week, I hope that it will be possible for the Committee to let us have the Resolution.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We have no desire to hold up this matter after having had two really good, tip-top days' Debate on the subject of agricultural marketing. I would like, however, to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, before the money Resolution is carried, who would pay any expenses incurred by the Consumers' Committee in investigating, on behalf of bodies interested in the consumers, the effect of any order or a number of orders restricting imports for the special purpose, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly explained, of increasing prices? The expenses of development boards and investigating committees are to be met by moneys provided by Parliament and ultimately repaid by the Marketing Control Board. The only committee not referred to in the Financial Resolution is the Consumers' Committee, and I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to inform us
whether, when the Consumers' Committee has been appointed and expenses have been incurred in carrying out their duties, the expense will be met?

6.28 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I will answer the hon. Gentleman immediately. That matter remains under the 1931 Act, and consequently, as we have not altered that Act in any way, the expenses are paid by the Treasury. We have taken power to recover the expenses of the Reorganisation Commission, which are now recoverable, but we have not taken power to recover the expenses of the Consumers' Committee, which remain due to be paid for under provisions already made by this House.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY] (No. 2).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for regulating the importation and sale of agricultural products and for organising the production of secondary agricultural products, to amend the law with respect to the marketing of agricultural products, and to make further provision in connection with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act for the purpose of regulating the importation of any agricultural product into the United Kingdom; and
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State under the said Act for the purpose of regulating sales of any agricultural product in so far as it is produced in the United Kingdom."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Major Elliot.]

6.31 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will tell us why we have to have two Money Resolutions. I notice from the wording of this second Resolution that the Board of Trade may incur certain expenditure in imposing restrictions on the importation of certain
agricultural products. The Bill has been before Parliament for a fortnight, and the Department have now discovered that they may want payment for certain work they may be called upon to do. I should like to know what estimate has been made as to the expenditure which may be incurred in restricting the imports of all sorts of agricultural commodities, and also what expenditure may be incurred in regulating the sales of any agricultural products produced in the United Kingdom. If the Treasury is to be called upon to meet such expenses it is almost equivalent to compounding a felony. We are going to incur certain expenses in restricting imports, and by doing so increase the profits of importers and stabilise vested interests; yet the Money Resolution indicates that the Treasury is to be called upon to meet these expenses. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the estimate in both cases, tell us whether the Treasury will meet the bill, or whether the importers or any other body of traders, will be called upon to refund any expenses incurred in restricting the importation of commodities.

6.33 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: The only reason why we have not put in any sum is that, so far as we can see, it is practically a negligible amount. We have been unable to form any estimate of the cost; indeed, we do not think that any expenses will be incurred. Still, it is just possible that some expenses may be incurred in the case of restrictions which are already operating, but up to the moment no extra expenditure has been incurred in connection with these schemes. The staffs are in existence and information as to the stocks in cold storage is obtained voluntarily by the Board of Trade. It may be that some expenses will be incurred in printing forms; but we are unable to put down any figure. I hope that no expense will be incurred under this particular Resolution.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but if imports arrive from Canada, Russia, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Denmark, negotiations will have to be undertaken in each case and, therefore, the staffs will not be adequate to deal with them, as it must be assumed that their normal duties occupy their full time.
Assuming that there may be extra staff employed for conducting these bargainings, the expense may be slight, but will the Treasury bear the expenditure or will they invite the importers, who are going to make tremendous profits out of this Bill, who are going to make fortunes for nothing out of it, to meet any slight expenditure which may be, incurred?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member will realise that it is undesirable that expenses incurred in investigations as to the making of these fortunes should fall upon the makers of these fortunes. We wish to pay the expenses, because we wish to have the power to call the tune. Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the county of the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, which was presented on the 16th day of February, 1933, be approved." —[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1931.

8.3 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of raspberries in Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 6th day of March, 1933, be approved.
If I detain the House on the first marketing scheme for Scotland, hon. Members will, I hope, excuse me. Although it is the first such scheme in Scotland, I am certain that it will not be the last, for there is great Activity in Scotland in this matter of improved marketing. Scottish farmers are really in earnest, for they are convinced, so far as I can gather, of the value of marketing schemes as a means of counteracting adverse economic conditions. In Scotland the raspberry industry is an important and developing industry. In 1932 the total area under raspberries was 4,715 acres, of which 4,000 acres were in Perth and Angus. There are about 940 growers, and the yield of raspberries is about 7,000 tons of a, value at remunerative prices of approximately £200,000. The industry has been subject to wide fluctuations of prices ever since its inception. Before the War prices ranged from about £7 to £30
a ton. During the War artifically high prices prevailed up to as much as £140 a ton. After the War for a number of years prices were in general satisfactory until 1930, when the price per ton fell 'as low as £9, which is approximately equal to the cost of picking the fruit, although the average was from £13 to £15.
I understand that the imports of foreign pulp affected prices, but it was not so much the actual imports as the anticipation of increased foreign supplies that was liable to upset the market. For example, I understand that the mere rumour that Russian pulp would be imported in quantity at £10 a ton had a seriously depressing effect on the prices received by home producers. In 1931 the average price was about the same as in 1930, in spite of a short crop. Here we have an example of how seriously prices may fluctuate within a year. At one time in 1930 the price was 'as low as £11 per ton. Later in the year consignments of the same crop were fetching upwards of £40 per tort. Some large growers who had financial facilities pulped their fruit and held it until the spring of 1932, securing very high prices in comparison with the smaller growers who had sold their fruit fresh picked from £11 to £18 per ton. In 1932 prices were good, owing, partly, to the import duty, but also to a large extent to the extra demand for the canning industry. The production of raspberries is mainly an industry of small growers not fully informed of market conditions and depending on merchants for the marketing of their crops, but the position of the small growers reacts on that of the large growers, who find their plans thrown out of gear by the weak selling of the small producers. Various associations
have been started in the past for the sale of the crop, but they have always come to grief through the difficulty that the growers who remained out of the associations got all the benefits without bearing any of the cost.
Let me turn to the circumstances which brought the present scheme into being. It is a straightforward pooling scheme, that is, a scheme by which a centralised marketing board takes and sells the produce and distributes the receipts to the producers, but important concessions are made in the interests of the various parties. I know that some hon. Members are objecting to this Order; I am anxious, therefore, to point out to them the safeguards which exist in the scheme in the interests of certain producers. All growers of less than one acre, of whom there are about 504 out of a total of 940, are exempted from registration, and jam manufacturers who grow fruit are also exempted from registration so long as they do not sell their fruit. Exemption is also granted in the case of fruit sold in small packages to a merchant or commission agent for retail sale or to domestic consumers. As to the prices which the producers will receive, the scheme provides that the Board shall make an allowance as they think suitable to producers whose raspberries have been sold for canning or other purposes which necessitates greater expense in picking or packing. Apart from the canning fruit, all growers will receive the same price irrespective of the prices at which their individual consignments have been sold. The scheme provides also for a system of payment by instalments and power is taken to make advances to registered producers.
The scheme has been the subject of a public inquiry which was held in Edinburgh in the autumn of last year and lasted four days. The Commissioner heard the case for the promoters and the various objectors, including growers, manufacturers and merchants. He made a comprehensive report, and, after considering it, I was satisfied that the scheme would conduce to the more effective production and marketing of the product and would have the effect of introducing into the industry a stability which has been lacking in recent years. The scheme has many advantages. It will be a benefit to growers in preventing
wasteful competition among hundreds of small growers in the selling of their pro duct. Centralised selling is the keynote of the scheme. By making prudent advances to growers it will obviate forced selling when growers are in need of capital. It will ensure that the fruit will find its way to the ultimate user, be he a jam manufacturer or canner, with the minimum of expense and with the intervention of as few intermediaries as possible. It will also provide an intelligence service to growers so that they may plan and improve their production. In short, it will band them together and make raspberry growing, which is a large industry in Scotland, a real industry in the strict sense of the term.
There are numerous safeguards against the unfair operation of the scheme. Each producer has a right to arbitration if he considers himself aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board. It must be remembered that the board itself is elected by the producers. So far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, the board cannot compel a manufacturer to take any particular lot of fruit, but if a manufacturer buys fruit from the grower, there will be a contract for sale, and, if there be a breach of contract, the manufacturer can bring an action for damages against the board just as if it were an ordinary case of buyer and seller. It is contemplated that the board will arrange prices with merchants and manufacturers, and the scheme empowers the board to appoint representatives to a joint committee on which merchants and manufacturers will also be represented. The functions of that committee will be to assist in the determination of price and other matters. I may also remind the House that by the Act provision is made for a committee of investigation, whose duty it will be to consider any complaints regarding the operation of the scheme.
Finally, before the scheme becomes operative, it must be approved—and I commend this with interest to hon. Members—by a majority of two-thirds of those voting on the board, and this majority must represent two-thirds of the producing capacity of those voting. I think that hon. Members will agree that the interests of the minority are thus well safeguarded. Since the scheme was submitted there has been considerable activity against it, and my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross
(Duchess of Atholl) is prepared to prove, or at any rate to argue, that it is no use going on with the scheme as it is certain to be defeated at the poll. As I conceive it, however, the function of the Government in presenting these schemes to Parliament, and the function of Parliament in considering them is not to take a final judgment on the merits or demerits of the scheme from the point of view of those mainly affected, namely, the producers. We have the duty undoubtedly to see that the interests of all concerned have been fairly and fully considered, and, if any hon. Member is of opinion that the scheme is ill-considered and against the public interest, he will without doubt represent that view. But if, as I am satisfied, and as I hope the House will be satisfied, there is a prima facie case for a marketing scheme, in order to obviate, so far as may be, a recurrence of the grave difficulties which have confronted the industry during the last two years, and, further, as the promoters are prepared to carry their fate to the poll, I hope the House will not prejudge the issue.
In conclusion, let me remind producers of the observations made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the Report of the 26th July, 1932, in which they made recommendations for import duties on certain horticultural products, including raspberries, for it has a direct bearing on the matter we are discussing. They said:
That section of industry covered by the present report cannot be prosperous unless it can sell its products to advantage, and this it cannot do unless they are of the right quality and price and in this connection we cannot ignore the tendency of recent agricultural policy to stress the need for improved marketing. In addition to increased production great importance must, therefore, be attached to improvement in marketing methods, including the organised assembly, grading, and packing of the product, and the progress made in this direction must be kept under observation in connection with any future review of the duties.
These words come from the Report of the Advisory Committee, which I commend to producers in Scotland. I submit this Resolution with confidence to the House, in order that the scheme, if it is approved by the producers themselves, can be brought into operation in time to regulate the marketing of the 1933 crop.

8.18 p.m.

Lord SCONE: In rising to explain to the House the reasons why I consider this Order should not be approved, I should like it to be understood that I am expressing not only my own view but the views, certainly, of the majority of the acreage of Scotland, and I believe of the majority of producers. The Secretary of State issued a report which is appended to the Order, and this report contains certain inaccuracies which go far to destroy the arguments he has very skilfully presented to us. In the second paragraph it states that the Secretary of State was aware that the situation of raspberry growers in Scotland had been causing anxiety during the past few years. I think that is a slight exaggeration, because no anxiety whatever was felt—and I think so much can be gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's own remarks—until the year 1930, and only when vast quantities of Dutch and Russian raspberry pulp were dumped into this country. That dumping, together with the fear of even more dumping, caused prices to go into that catastrophic slide which the right hon. Gentleman has accurately described. But even to judge from his own remarks, it is evident that that fall in prices was due entirely to unchecked and uncontrolled foreign imports, and not to inefficient marketing. If inefficient marketing were to blame, why was it that in the years since the War, which I think it will be admitted were riot easy ones for the agricultural community, even if they were not anything like as bad as the last two or three years have been, we had no complaints? Simply because dumping of foreign pulp had not taken place. We must remember that any dumping of raspberries is in the shape of pulp, as the fresh fruit will not travel. At the present time there is a duty of, I believe, 25 per cent. on imported raspberry pulp, and that has caused the industry to become stabilised again, as the right hon. Gentleman admits.
All the industry asks is that it should be left alone, not merely to recover its position, but to go from strength to strength. I knew that the figure of raspberries grown in Scotland in the year 1931 was about 4,500 acres. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that for 1932 the figure was 4,700 acres. In the space of that one year we have seen a
very satisfactory increase of more than 200 acres. One has to consider the interests of producers, of manufacturers and of consumers. I am not going to concern myself very much with the point of view of the consumer, because no one has ever suggested that there has been any profiteering at his expense. The prices of jam may fluctuate a little from year to year, like the prices of any other commodity, but I do not think there is any evidence to show that in the past either producers or manufacturers have been guilty of profiteering in raspberry jam. At the present time the vast majority of those in the raspberry industry, not merely producers, but also manufacturers, are entirely opposed to this Order, because the industry is already very well organised from the point of view of marketing. There may be slight deficiencies here and there. Those deficiences would remain even under a marketing scheme, but there is no doubt at all that of all the subsidiary branches of agriculture, the raspberry industry has probably been the best organised in the last few years as far as marketing is concerned. I think it would be advantageous to follow for a few moments the history of the inception of this scheme. In paragraph 3 of the report of the Secretary of State for Scotland it is stated:
On the completion of the harvesting season in 1931 a meeting convened by the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, by advertisement in the newspaper Press, was held in Perth. The society's organisers had made inquiries amongst growers and were satisfied that there was a demand for a scheme under the Act.
It will be seen that the original pressure for the inception of a scheme came not from the industry itself but from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, a very worthy body, but one whose enthusiasm is at times liable to outrun its discretion. The paragraph goes on to say:
Only 20 growers attended the meeting, but the meeting unanimously passed the following resolution.
That was a Resolution approving the principle of a marketing board. There are more than 400 producers who grow more than one acre of raspberries, and the vast majority of them are within the counties of Perth and Angus, and when only 20 of them took the trouble to turn up at this meeting I think it was proof positive that the industry as a whole was
not interested, and viewed such a scheme with complete indifference. At the present time they would view it not with indifference but with abhorrence.
A few weeks ago I made an endeavour to discover what was the view of the industry as a whole, and with that in view I inserted a letter in the columns of some leading newspapers in Scotland which cover all the areas concerned. In my letter I made no statement whatever of personal opinion, but I merely asked that all producers of raspberries should communicate with me stating whether or not they were in favour of the proposed scheme. I received replies well over 100 in number, and of those replies one was favourable to the scheme, and that was from a grower owning five acres. The other replies were all, and for the most part violently, opposed, and they accounted for some 2,700 acres of the total of 4,700. It must be remembered that of the 4,700, probably some 300 or 400 acres belonged to small producers who would not come under the scheme at all. So far as the counties of Perth, Angus and Lanark were concerned, it was obvious that the vast majority were opposed to the scheme, and owners of something like 2,400 acres of those counties announced their unalterable hostility. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that there are more people in the industry in favour of the scheme than the 20 who attended that meeting.
On the second page of the Secretary of State's Report, it is stated that
the Kirriemuir Fruit Growers' Association … wrote to the Department expressing hearty support for the scheme. This association has a membership of 17, with a total raspberry-growing acreage of 80 acres.
This is largely discounted by the statement that one of the promoters is secretary to the association. I think that we all know what an active and energetic secretary can do towards influencing the members of an association. It may be that 80 acres in Angus are in favour. I do not know about that, hut I do know that I have the signature of another half-dozen persons, representing well over 200 acres, who are against it, to say nothing of the very large number in Perth, owning over 500 acres, who are also opposed. I have a letter from the Jam Manufacturers' Association stating that they also see no good whatever in the scheme.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly. I have made out a
case for not approving of this scheme as it stands, because there can be little doubt that it was foisted upon the industry as a whole by the organisation of a meeting run by a clique. This clique does not represent the industry, and the statement in the first paragraph of the report of the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the
evidence by which my predecessor was satisfied that the persons submitting the scheme were duly representative
is far from being the case. It may be true that all those gentlemen have some financial interest in raspberries, but I submit that as most of them do not live chiefly by raspberries it is better to accept the view that I have put forward, because it represents the opinion of men whose whole capital is sunk in the industry. Of the nine persons whose names stand on the first page of the scheme, very few, if any, can be said to depend entirely upon raspberries. Three of them are lawyers, one is a bank manager, one is a veterinary surgeon, and one is a large farmer. Those whose views I am expressing consist of over 100 persons, most of whom are entirely dependent upon the raspberry industry. Their acreage is very varied, from one and one quarter acres to several hundreds. There is the small grower with a few acres, the medium grower with from 10 to 30 acres and the big grower witch from 50 up to 200 or 300 acres, there is unanimity among all three sections in deploring the scheme. I submit therefore that it is a waste of time to approve it, because it is certain to be rejected. It will put a large number of small men, who are not well off, to considerable inconvenience and expense, and if it is put in operation its effect upon the industry would be deleterious rather than beneficial.

8.31 p.m.

Lord DUNGLASS: The raspberry growers have left behind them one season of comfortable cultivation and are justified, as my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) said, in looking forward to another, and perhaps others, of the same kind. He is quite right in saying that their recovery is due, if not wholly, at least in part, to the imposition of the import duties, and the change in prosperity is so real that it leaves my Noble Friend to take his stand against
this or any other scheme, on the ground that we should leave well alone. I accept his facts, and indeed the House can do so, but I cannot so easily agree with his conclusions. Surely an outstanding feature in every branch of agricultural production at the present time is that each producer, in a world of abnormally low prices and of restricted demand, is trying, by increasing the quantity of its sales, to recover profits that the quality can no longer command. Is the cultivation of raspberries likely to be any exception to that mile? It may easily be the case that the raspberry growers have what is known as "a good thing" and they may be tempted to over produce, as has been the case in every branch of agriculture.

Lord SCONE: If my Noble Friend will allow me to interrupt for a moment, I would like to say that there is no danger of over production for a good many years to come, one reason being that it takes years to produce the necessary amount of raspberry canes. There is yet a very big scope for the development of the industry, there is certainly a very great deal of foreign imports and much has to be done to encourage the consumption of raspberries. Even if the industry desired, it could not extend very rapidly, as there is a shortage of the necessary canes. The chief canes are known as "The Lloyd George." I do not know why it is so called, but I suppose that the name was given in the heyday of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Judging by some of the right hon. Gentleman's recent speeches in this House, I think that a more suitable godchild than a raspberry would have been a lemon.

Lord DUNGLASS: I agree with my Noble Friend that there is a large and expanding market, but there is also a large and undeveloped acreage. He tells me that Scotland can absorb many more producers of raspberries, and I agree, but, again, it must be remembered that, with the distress in arable agriculture, there are many who are only too anxious and ready to switch off into any side-line which offers a temporary profit, and I must remind my Noble Friend that, once you have switched over to the cultivation of a crop like raspberries, it is not so easy to go back again. Let me tell my Noble
Friend something which, perhaps, he does not know, or which, at least, does not cause him alarm, about the raspberry known as the "Lloyd George" raspberry. My concern is the very opposite of that of my Noble Friend. That raspberry is so prolific that it sometimes yields twice or three times as much per acre as other varieties, and I may perhaps be allowed to lament with my Noble Friend the fact that all the seeds which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has broadcast on the winds have not been so consistent in bearing fruit.
My Noble Friend cannot see overproduction in raspberries, but I confess that I can, and I assure him that there is an opposite point of view. Then he argued that there is a tariff, and that that is enough; but, again, with abnormally low world prices, with the policy adopted by so many European Governments of subsidising or giving bounties on exports, and with the daily uncertainty of foreign rates of exchange, he would be a bold man who would tell me that a 25 per cent. tariff will be sufficient for the raspberry industry until some date a great way ahead. When the day comes when this industry has to go before the Import Duties Advisory Committee and ask for an increased tariff, I would ask my Noble Friend whose case would be the stronger—the trade which has control of the supplies, or the trade which has not, the trade which has organised its sales or that which has not? I would recommend growers in Scotland to pay particular attention to the development which came out of the Debate on the Agricultural Marketing Bill only yesterday, when it was said in so many words that protection by tariff, by quota or by Order is not only essentially related to, but is conditional on, organisation of the home supplies.

Lord SCONE: The organisation is efficient now.

Lord DUNGLASS: I agree with my Noble Friend that a tariff is sufficient now, but I hope—

Lord SCONE: I did not say that a tariff was sufficient, but that the organisation is efficient now.

Lord DUNGLASS: I cannot agree with my Noble Friend in that, but, at any rate, I would ask the growers to realise that Protection is conditional on good organisation, with a marketing scheme at home. The question which seems to remain is: Is this the best kind of scheme My Noble Friend conducted a kind of large-scale canvass on this question, and he has given us some figures which at first sight seem convincing; but, if I remember aright, the canvass conducted by my Noble Friend was issued as a letter in the daily papers about the 6th March, the same day, I think, on which the amended scheme was laid on the Table of the House of Commons. When my Noble Friend says that 100 growers were against and one in favour, I would ask, how many of those growers had had the opportunity, before sending in their replies, of looking at the amended scheme? The number must indeed have been very small. Although my Noble Friend's figures may seem impressive to the House, he has, after all, only obtained replies from 101 out of a total of 900 growers—

Lord SCONE: One hundred and fifty.

Lord DUNGLASS: I beg pardon; but that is out of a total of 900; and I should have thought, also, that my Noble Friend's political experience would have told him that the quickest way to rid yourself of a canvasser is to tell him what you think he would like you to say. One or two major alterations have been made since the consideration of the scheme was renewed, but, at any rate, speaking for my district of Lanarkshire, which is largely composed of small growers, their previous objections to the scheme have largely been because they considered that there was going to be an unwarrantable interference with the preserve and fresh fruit side of their industry.
My right hon. Friend has told us that two classes of growers are exempted. In the first place, there is the man who grows less than one acre of raspberries, and, secondly, there is the man who sells his raspberries retail in packages of less than 24 lbs. I also should be against this scheme if I did not think that those fresh fruit growers were safeguarded. Much of their trade is of a purely local nature, and the rest of it depends on quick railway facilities from their farms to the industrial centres and, in the case of
Lanarkshire, to the industrial towns in the North of England. It is clear that the retention of such a market depends on the ability of the producer to produce his fruit in the best possible condition, and to get it at the right time to those centres; and, clearly, that can be better done by individual enterprise than by any board. But, being satisfied that these retail traders are being properly dealt with, I would have the growers know that their trade can be carried on with a minimum of dislocation, and that really, for all practical purposes they are exempt from the scheme.
My right hon. Friend has dealt also with the increased price which the Board is allowed to pay for canning purposes, and with the further fact that, if a particular market is held by a particular producer, a still higher price may be paid. I will not dwell on that aspect of the matter, but there is one point to which I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention. It is in paragraph 18, on page 6, of the provisional scheme, which allows manufacturers who grow their raspberries for their own consumption to be exempt from the scheme as long as they do not offer those raspberries for sale. I think that, if the House passes this scheme, it should be made clear to the promoters that, if the Board are extravagant in their demands, if they attempt to hold up supplies, or if they ask too high a price which the manufacturers are not willing to give, it will have the effect of driving manufacturers more and more to extend their own acreage and produce more and more fruit for use as their own raw material. I would remind my right hon. Friend, though really he needs no reminder, that we are all pressing for some extension of the smallholdings movement. Raspberries are a crop particularly suited to the smallholder and the small grower. The crop is one which they can produce with very little trouble and at very little cost, and any large extension in the direction of manufacturers producing their own fruit would be a development in the direction in which we least want to go.
I would conclude by staking out a claim on behalf of the Lanarkshire fruit growing area which is represented by my Noble Friend and myself. The Lanarkshire crop matures early. It comes to maturity after the English crop is done, and before the Blairgowrie crop is
ready. The growers there carry on a good trade with the industrial towns of the North of England, and they have a kind of factory in their midst to which small growers can take their fruit, picked in the best condition on the spot. The district has been endowed by nature, so to speak, with a monopoly. My right hon. Friend may at some time find himself the happy possessor of a strawberry bed, with one possible competitor put out of action by a previous success and the key of the garden in his pocket. If he was in that privileged position, he would think he ought to have some voice in the future procedure and a share in the bed. It may well be that the Board, when they come to operate the scheme, would seek to do something which would fundamentally affect their trade. He has the power to appoint two nominees to the Board, and it would be most gratefully received in Lanarkshire if one of those nominees could be a person representing that area. We cannot tell how the scheme will work in detail, but I would recommend it to the Scottish growers as well worth a trial.

8.46 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have no desire to say anything derogatory to the possible value of marketing schemes, or to suggest that this industry of raspberry growing is not a suitable experiment for a well-thought-out marketing scheme, but on examination, which I have endeavoured to make as impartial as possible, the scheme itself makes me feel that, even in its modified form, it might well tend to throw excessive powers into the hands of a very few people who are not necessarily in close touch with the views of the great mass of the producers in, the industry. I will specify the directions in which the scheme seems to me to want very careful examination from that point of view. The first thing I find is that in paragraph 3 (2) the Board which is to manage the industry is only to be elected indirectly by the producers. Of course, that is completely contrary to the custom by which the directors of an ordinary shareholding company are elected. The common practice is for the shareholders to have a direct voice in the election of their directors. I recognise that in the ease of producers, many of them people of small means, it may not be easy to get continuity of repre-
sentation, but to put the power of election of the Board into the hands of a selection committee of not more than 20 seems to me to give inadequate means of expressing their views in the matter to the great mass of the producers. A selection committee of 20 seems distinctly too small a body to express the view of 400 producers of over one acre, to say nothing of the 500 who produce one acre or less.
In paragraph 3 (11) large powers of delegation are to be given to committees of the Board. The committees are required to report to the Board, but it does not state that their actions need confirmation or approval by the Board. That may be merely an omission, but I think it is an omission which should be made clear. Then it seems to me that the minimum period fixed for the summoning of a general meeting is too short. Paragraph 38 says that it must be at least seven days, including, I believe, the day of posting the notice. I do not read this as giving every producer seven clear days' notice of the meeting. In that case, it may well be that some producers will not receive it until five days before the meeting. That seems distinctly a shorter time than is customary in summoning general meetings. Seven days certainly seems shorter than the usual period in societies with which I have been connected, and I think it all the more short, because, if a registered producer cannot attend a general meeting, he is to have the power of nominating a proxy, but the nomination has to arrive at the office of the Board three clear days before the date of the meeting, and that seems to me to be rather out of focus with the time allowed for the notice of the meeting itself. Then paragraph 39 empowers the chairman to determine whether a vote at the meeting is to be taken by ballot or by show of hands. I thought the usual practice was to leave such a decision in the hands of the meeting itself. It seems an excessive power in the hands of the chairman of a meeting which may be attended by a good many people who are unaccustomed to attending meetings of that kind. Then we are told that the Act requires existing contracts to be recognised. I find nothing about that in the scheme, though perhaps it might be said that, as
it is in the Act itself, it is taken for granted.
When I come to the scheme itself, I find that sales are only to be conducted by or through the agency of the board. That is giving a rather larger power to the board than is the case with many schemes which, I am told, are working very well in the United States and elsewhere. I find that under paragraph 17 the exemptions of which my right hon. Friend has told us to producers who sell not more than 24 lbs. of raspberries extends to sales through agents receiving commission. I do not say that that is objectionable, but it is not elimination of the parties that I understand these schemes generally seek to eliminate. I understand paragraph 26 as meaning that the Board itself can sell through a merchant on commission. I find no limit fixed to the commission that can be given. Whatever commission is given, of course, must come off the receipts allowed to the producer and be added to the expenses of the Board, and, as I read the scheme, it seems possible that the board may have members who are not only producers but are also selling on commission. I would ask the House to consider whether it would not be desirable that membership of the board should be limited to producers only.
We know, of course, that the scheme provides a uniform price for all raspberries that come up to the standard fixed by the board for quality, for picking and packing. I am very glad to understand from the scheme that, not only will there be a special allowance for fruit suitable for canning, but also that, within the range of quality suitable for canning, a higher price may be allowed for a better than is allowed for something of less quality. I am very glad to understand that that is the case, because I think there has been some misconception on that point, and it seems to me essential that, in regard to raspberries grown for canning, the best quality should get the best price and that it should not be supposed that, because the fruit that is intended for canning has reached the standard fixed by the board, there will be no variation of price above that standard. Canning requires fruit of specially high quality, and very clean and careful picking and packing, and it is essential that canners should be able
under this scheme to rely upon securing the best and most suitable fruit. It is all the more necessary to satisfy the canners, because, as my right hon. Friend has said, they are exempt from the operations of the scheme.
England and Wales are also exempt from the operations of the scheme, and it therefore seems to be very essential that the board, in their operations, should make it perfectly certain that canners get the best quality of fruit, if necessary, direct from the producer with the sanction of the board, in order that they may be satisfied, and that there may be no temptation to them either to grow their own fruit or to try to purchase it elsewhere. I am told that Scottish raspberries have a special flavour, but it would be a calamity for small producers in Scotland if, by any failure to ensure that the canners get the quality they need, there should be any temptation to them to secure the fruit they require by other means than by purchasing through the board.
Paragraph 18 allows manufacturers who produce raspberries for manufacture in their own factories to be exempt from registration and from the operation of the scheme so long as they do not sell or offer for sale any such raspberries. I believe that there is some doubt as to exactly what that means. Does the prohibition extend merely to raspberries sold in a fresh state? I put the question because it is very important that there shall be no misunderstanding. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he replies will make the point clear. I understand that it is not clear to all producers exactly what the prohibition means.
Finally, I come to a point which causes me great anxiety. I heard with great concern my right hon. Friend refer to a report made last summer on this industry which sounded to me as if it were possible that, if the industry did not adopt this scheme for marketing, the Import Duties Advisory Committee might reconsider the maintenance of the duty of 25 per cent. on foreign raspberries and raspberry pulp, which, it has been admitted this evening, has placed the raspberry industry in a very much more secure, advantageous and prosperous position than it has occupied for the last few years. I am afraid that I am correct in understanding
my right hon. Friend in this respect, from remarks which have fallen from my Noble Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass). He referred in his speech more than once to the fact that tariffs had been granted only on the understanding that marketing schemes were adopted in each case. That is not how I have understood the policy of the National Government, nor how agriculturists generally in this country have understood it. If I wished to give any proof of what I say, I would point to the fact that the same provision, unfortunately, appears in the Agricultural Marketing Bill which was read a Second time yesterday. If my Noble Friend agrees that that is the meaning of Clause 1 (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, it cannot have been the policy of the Government at the date on which the duty of 25 per cent. was put upon foreign raspberries.

Lord DUNGLASS: The distinction I made was that certain conditions like subsidies on exports from abroad might make it necessary for producers of raspberries to go to the Imports Advisory Committee for an increase of the tariff of 25 per cent. which they have at present. I agree that the position my Noble Friend speaks about does not apply to the 25 per cent. tariff as we have it now.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very glad if I misunderstood what my Noble Friend said, but I return to the still more authoritative source of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall be only too glad if he can disabuse me in this respect, as I understood that, he said that this report indicated that the Import Duties Advisory Committee might reconsider the maintenance of the existing duty of 25 per cent. if the industry did not reorganise its marketing. I shall be only too glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that I am wrong.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Noble Lady has misunderstood my reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I read out to the House the exact words. I think that the Noble Lady has misunderstood, and has, therefore, misinterpreted me.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am relieved to know that, but I think there is some excuse for my anxiety when one remembers the policy to which I have already
referred which is embodied in Clause 1 (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Bill. It may not have been the policy of the Government when the duty was imposed, and therefore I hope that the duty will not be regarded by the Government as having been given subject to a marketing scheme being brought into operation for the raspberry industry. I am relieved to know that that is not the case, and that producers are not to be put into the position of having to agree to a scheme which many of them think contains great disadvantages, and which, I think, needs modification in the respects to which I have alluded under the penalty of possibly losing the protection which has proved so valuable.
My Noble Friend the Member for Lanark tried to discount the amount of opposition shown among producers to this scheme. He made a point that my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) had invited communications from producers before the modified scheme had been published. If my Noble Friend has given time to comparing the original and the modified schemes, he will see that there is little difference between the two. I admit that in one or two respects it is improved. There is a limit of 2s. per acre to the contribution which the producer must make, if required, to the fund, and there are one or two other matters in which there are changes, but, broadly speaking, the scheme is the same. I think that almost every feature which I have criticised to-night was in the original scheme. Therefore, I think we may say that the objections which my Noble Friend received from 150 producers out of a total of 433 registered producers—what I may call effective producers under the scheme—is rather a large proportion, and the Noble Lord may be interested to know that those 150 include, I am told, practically all the producers in his own constituency, so that he may learn a little more about the reasons for objections to schemes than he seems hitherto to have done.

Lord DUNGLASS: I disagree with my constituents in that I consider the scheme is good for them, and they do not.

Duchess of ATHOLL: That makes no difference to the fact. He may receive communications from producers who differ from him, and no doubt he will reply
very effectively to them. While I raise no objection in principle to a marketing scheme for the raspberry industry, I think that in certain respects it needs careful consideration, and I hope it will receive careful consideration by the producers who are dependent entirely for their livelihood on this industry.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I take part in this Debate with a certain amount of fear. I have been guilty of many cheeky things in this House, and probably I am now committing an unpardonable offence in speaking as the representative of the Gorbals constituency on an agricultural subject and interfering in a dispute between Noble Lords and Noble Ladies. But I want to raise one or two points which have not so far been mentioned. The scheme which we are now considering shows how far we have travelled in a few short months. I do not want to appear as if I am looking into the past of some hon. Members, but when I look at the persons who are responsible for introducing this scheme I cannot help remembering that not many years ago the Secretary of State was an unrepentent Free Trader, and one of the few unrepentent individualists, who looked with scorn upon and opposed any form of collectivism.
To-day we are considering a scheme which eliminates the individual in the selling of a particular commodity. You are setting up machinery which takes away the rights of an individual in the sale of his own product. The Noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) was a little risky in saying that he supported this scheme and then to say calmly that he did so because the growers in his constituency are outside the scheme. The Noble Lord the Member for Perth and Kinross (Lord Scone) also supported it because his people are outside this scheme.

Lord SCONE: There is no question of the constituents in Lanarkshire being outside the scheme, they are in it, and they resent being in it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Noble Lord the Member for Lanark told us that they dealt with dessert fruit, and, as such, are exempt.

Lord DUNGLASS: There are quite a number who are exempt, but there are certain others who are in the scheme.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But a good many of the Noble Lord's constituents are exempt. The point is this; you have a scheme for the purpose of regulating the price and under the scheme a board is to sell the commodity for these growers. The man who owns the land, who owns the product from his land, has hitherto sold his produce in a free market. He is not to be allowed to sell it now, he must hand it over to this board, who will sell it for him, pay all accounts and meet all bad debts. And hon. Members who are now proposing this policy have denounced trade unions for daring to come even within measurable distance of this proposal. This is syndicalism in its worst form. Before the duty was put on foreign goods regulated price. Now, apart from what may come from England and Wales, there is nothing to regulate price. These people, in combination, can regulate the price. There is another, and a very important factor. Hitherto it has been the producers of raspberries who have sold their produce to the big factories for making jam. That is not true to-day. The big factories themselves are now producers, and, in addition, are actually sellers as well. In some cases they not only produce for themselves but for others. The producers now can stabilise at a particular price, and that price must be accepted by every person engaged in the industry. I have no doubt that there is a good deal to be said for it but I confess that I cannot see the difference between this and the last Measure. The object of both is to get a higher price for the commodity, because ruination faced the industry if prices fell to an abnormally low level. This proposal is an attempt to stabilise price at a higher level. Someone must pay the higher price. It is admitted that the growers are not going to meet it.

Lord SCONE: The retail price of jam did not come down.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Noble Lord is right it means that the growers of raspberries who are also manufacturers of jam are going to get increased profits, because they are going to have a higher price fixed for the product. If you take the firm of Scotts, one of the biggest firms in the trade, an efficient and capable firm, they are also sellers as well as manufacturers, and they are now going to have a price guaranteed. The
Noble Lord says that the retail price of jam has not fallen, in that case they are now going to get higher profits because this Bill guarantees them a definite price, which they had not got before. The worst feature of all is that while we guarantee a price to producers, and also to those who are not only producers but manufacturers as well, the workmen engaged in the industry are not guaranteed a price; they are to get no definite guaranteed wage. There is not one word about the wages and conditions of the men and women employed in the industry. The producer is to have a guaranteed price; his labour is rewarded. He puts into the land his knowledge and, if you like, his capital, and in return you guarantee him a price. But the poor man in South Lanarkshire, who puts into it his life, is not to be guaranteed a price, he is left to the free market of the 3,000,000 unemployed, who are to determine whether he is to get a wage or not. If there are plenty of people unemployed and ready to flock into the industry, then the worker's wage will be low.

Lord DUNGLASS: If I were a worker for a farmer in my Division I would prefer to work for one who made a profit on his raspberries than for one who did not make a profit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But if you guaranteed the farmer a price you would expect your own price to be guaranteed also. The guarantee that is here proposed is a guarantee to the producer of a price for his brains, but the man who goes to work for him is to get no guarantee at all. There is no agricultural wages hoard for him. Why has this been done for the producer I Because of over-production.

Lord SCONE: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Noble Lord says "No." Another Noble Lord, the Member for Lanarkshire, says "Yes." I will let the Noble Lords have it both ways. One says it is because of dumping; the other says there is a combination of both dumping and over-production. Whatever the explanation, there was too much of the fruit on the market. The Government come along and first of all give a guarantee to the producer by putting on a tariff. Then they come along and say, "That is not good enough.
Give him a marketing scheme." That is to eliminate wasteful competition. But there is the ordinary man who has to work for the producer. He is faced with two million or three million unemployed. The more men there are available the lower the price at which labour can be obtained. If labour is scarce labour is dear, but plentiful labour is cheap labour. So we say that if you are going to propound a scheme to give the growers a guaranteed price when raspberries are plentiful and to prevent them undercutting one another, you ought to guarantee the wages of the labour as well. The one person who does not get any guarantee is the most defenceless person of all.
I know something about those who work in the raspberry area. They go from my own division up to Blairgowrie and Auchterarder. Their wages are the best they can get. Some employers treat them not badly, others not as well. It may be true that under this scheme the grower who will get a better profit may share some of it with the workers, but what guarantee is there of that? I had a sister who went to work on a raspberry farm. She was at Glasgow University as a teacher. She earned this money because she needed it to live. When she was there they had a strike because the conditions were indefensible. To-day the conditions are drifting back to what they were. So much so that the Employment Exchanges in the City of Glasgow are not insisting on anyone undertaking that job as a condition of drawing benefit. The conditions are not what they should be. This Measure was first drafted by a Labour Government and the consideration that ought to be first and foremost is a guaranteed income for the labourer.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have looked at the Act, and I find there is no power in the Act to deal with the question which the hon. Member is raising.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But under the Act the Secretary of State has power, before he consents to a scheme, to be sure that the scheme provides proper wages and conditions of work. He can say to the growers: "I shall not sanction your scheme until you guarantee a wage and definite hours of labour." That is not
being done in this case. The Government leave poor and defenceless men and women still defenceless, still liable to work under the most shocking conditions and for wages that are not good. The proposal should be taken back and the Secretary of State should inform those concerned that he will give them the marketing scheme and the guaranteed price only when they come along and say that they will give the labourers, male and female, a guaranteed price for their labour. On these grounds we take exception to the proposal. I am not in a position to argue whether the industry is properly organised or not. I know only one firm, Scott's, which I think is efficient and capably carried on. The least that can be done to-night is to introduce a guarantee of wages and conditions for the workers concerned. Their interests are just as important as those of the growers.

9.25 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: We have had an interesting Debate, which is probably a forerunner of many similar Debates in the years to come. As one who has been in public life in Scotland for many years, nothing has given me greater pleasure than to hear the two most excellent speeches from the two Noble Lords, the hon. Member for Perth (Lord Scone) and the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), who, I hope, will take a prominent part in our Debates in future. I have been supporting, as all my colleagues of the Unionist party in Scotland have been supporting, the efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the Minister of Agriculture for Scotland and of the Minister of Agriculture for England, in regard to the Marketing Bill which has been discussed in this House. I should be very 10th, in the first marketing scheme presented to this House, with all the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to vote against it being submitted to those who are interested in it in Scotland. It is a trial scheme and we shall learn much from it, whether it is accepted by the raspberry growers or not. If it is accepted by them, it will show how other schemes may be made more successful in agriculture than, perhaps, this one may be. I, for one, wish that it should go to the people who are interested in it in Scotland for their opinion. If they
throw it out, it is their affair. If they pass it, then it will be an excellent example of what may happen in future in many other parts of the great horticultural and agricultural industries, for whose success we wish so much at the present time.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: With very much of the argument addressed to us by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I agree. At the same time, we do not want to oppose the passage of this scheme. In our view, the fault is largely due to bad organisation and we believe the scheme which the Government propose will have the effect of enabling the industry to be much better organised than it has been in the past. As I understand it, the object is to stabilise prices. I do not object to employers seeking to stabilise prices. I wish employers in the industry to which I belong would ask the Government to give them power to stabilise prices. If they did stabilise them at a reasonable point, it would surely make the job of the trade unions very much easier in getting fair wages. I believe the right course to take is to follow the desire of the organisation that speaks for the raspberry growers. Like the hon. Member for Gorbals, I cannot speak in any way as an authority. As a matter of fact, being a Member of the Labour party and, worse than that, a miners' representative, I suppose I shall not be regarded as an authority on anything, unless it is strikes. I am in complete sympathy with the demand from the organisation representing raspberry growers for the stabilisation of prices. If and when prices are stabilised, I think we shall have an infinitely stronger case to demand very much improved conditions for the industry in general. In any case, we are not prepared on this side to vote against the proposal of the Government, and if it goes to a Division we shall be prepared to vote in favour of the scheme.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: It is only because of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that I venture to intervene for a few moments. The hon. Member waxed very eloquent about the condition of the workers engaged in harvesting the raspberries in Scotland. I
cannot claim to know very much about the conditions of labour in this field. The hon. Member credited us on this side, and hon. Members in all parts of the House, with being animated by a common desire to do the right thing. I am sure I am speaking for everybody concerned with raspberries in Scotland, when I say that such is certainly our desire. I think the hon. Member will agree that we of the Conservative party can point with pride to our record with regard to protecting the workers. No doubt the plea he has made to-night in regard to raspberries will be raised in connection with all the marketing schemes we are going to consider in this House, especially in regard to agriculture. He says that no direct provision is made for the raspberry workers in this Order. This is a case of casual labour, but agricultural wages in Scotland as a whole are certainly better than in England. That is a source of great satisfaction to all of us who come from Scotland, and I may point out in this connection that in Scotland there is no agricultural wages board. Nevertheless, the increasing unemployment in agriculture all round, including raspberries, gives most of us serious cause for concern and it is just because unemployment is beginning to become, not only a spectre, but is likely to become a menace that we are supporting wholeheartedly all the schemes which the National Government are bringing forward for the resuscitation of agriculture in all its branches. I support the plea that the right hon. Gentleman should see, so far as it can reasonably be done, that the powers which the Order gives him to protect workers shall be carried into effect.

9.35 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) took exception to this scheme on the ground that it did not safeguard the interests of the workers engaged in the industry. I would remind him that in this matter I am administering an Act passed by the Labour Government in 1931, and that that Act made no provision for safeguarding the interests of those on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke. As I am merely administering that Act he cannot charge me with any failure in my duty, if I am unable on this occasion to meet him in regard to the points which he has sub-
mitted. I hope, therefore, he will not criticise me for not having implemented something which the late Labour Government did not see fit to insert in the Act of 1931.

Mr. GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman not administering the Act on behalf of the Government? Why make these rather invidious comparisons between the 1931 Act 'and the power which this Government have to improve that Act?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am administering a certain section of that Act dealing with the marketing of a product grown in Scotland, and I am confining myself strictly to the terms of the Act now on the Statute Book. I wish to deal with one or two points which were put to me by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). I quite unintentionally misled the Noble Lady in my reply to her question about what the Import Duties Advisory Committee stated. I quoted certain paragraphs in their report, but I did not quote the full report, and I now find that those words, which she thought were in the report, are in fact in the report. I led her, I fear, to think that the words which she suggested were not in the report. The report stated:
We propose to watch the decision from this standpoint and we shall not hesitate to recommend the immediate removal of any of the additional duties here proposed should it appear to us, that owing to the lack of efficient organisation or otherwise the prospect of a particular commodity being produced in this country of the right quality and in substantial quantities, and at a reasonable price, falls short of what might properly be expected.
Let me remind the Noble Lady that these are the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—that they should make representations to the Government and that the Government would consider it. But the question has not yet arisen and I feel sure that the fears which she has expressed will not arise in the immediate future. The Noble Lady took exception to some points in the draft scheme. I would point out that this matter was carefully considered by the producers and by all those interested for four days in Edinburgh and although exception may have been taken to certain paragraphs in this scheme I think
she will agree that a proper course was taken in holding this inquiry, in listening to objections and in having statements from the different parties heard with the consideration to which they were entitled. That is how these recommendations came into being.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I say that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was entirely right in having the inquiry, but I understand that fewer producers were able to attend and state objections, than would have been the case if the inquiry had been held in a centre much nearer to the main part of the raspberry-growing district.

Sir G. COLLINS: Where these inquiries are held is always a rather delicate point, but if the producers feel that their case has not been fully considered by those who inquired into the matter, they will have the opportunity of showing at the poll their dissatisfaction with the marketing scheme. The Noble Lady asked me some specific questions, including a question about raspberry pulp. I understand that the definition in paragraph 2 includes raspberry pulp.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. It does not refer to pulp but to the terms of paragraph 18 of the draft scheme.
Manufacturers who produce raspberries for manufacture in their own factories shall be exempt from the operation of the scheme so long as they do not sell or offer for sale such raspberries.
What type of raspberry is meant there? Is it the fresh fruit or the canned fruit?

Sir G. COLLINS: If the Noble Lady will refer to paragraph 2 which contains the definitions she will see that "raspberries" includes both fresh raspberries and preserved raspberries. She also showed concern about the position of the selection committee. The selection committee is to consist of not more than 20 registered producers and it is this committee which will set up the board in due course. I do not think that the House will expect me to go through all the different points which have been raised but I assure the Noble Lady that all these matters have been carefully considered. There is natural and justifiable ground for difference of opinion in these
matters. One point was in connection with the seven days which the Noble Lady thought insufficient. That matter I understand came up before the horticultural inquiry and they thought that at least seven days was sufficient.
The feature of our Debate this evening however has been two speeches from opposite points of view by the Noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dun-glass) and the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). The Noble Lord the Member for Lanark strongly supported the scheme, although he had some fears that the manufacturers might get the produce too cheaply. I suggest to him that if this scheme is to continue year by year the producers and sellers of products will have to take a large view and will have to consider the interests, not only of the manufacturers but the public, as well as the interests of the producers. No scheme such as we are now considering can be permanently established unless by the general consent of all concerned. The Noble Lord the Member for Perth has taken time by the forelock and has had a poll all to himself. Hon. Members of this House have had the experience of canvassing before an election. We have all, I am sure, looked at the results of our canvass and at times have thought to ourselves how certain we were to be returned. Sometimes those returns are accurate; sometimes, alas ! they raise hopes which are afterwards dashed to the ground. The Noble Lord told us that there were 150 against the scheme but that 300 or 400 had not yet voted.
I suggest that if his poll is correct, if his fears are grounded on fact and if this scheme is not in the interests of the producers, his countrymen in Scotland will show their resentment, first, at being asked to vote at all and, secondly, by a very definite vote against the scheme. If he is so confident that this scheme is disliked and resented by growers in his constituency, I suggest that he can now adopt the role of a prophet in his own country, for he has told the House this evening that the scheme is not wanted. Therefore, I suggest to him that we let the scheme go forward for settlement and allow the producers themselves to vote on it. I hope that the scheme will be supported at the poll by the producers, for although he thinks that prices have
been good, yet in 1930, 1931, and partly in 1932 the producers have undoubtedly received a very low price. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) twitted me for supporting this Motion, but I would remind him that I supported the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931 when it went through this House. This Measure is the first stage in organised marketing in Scotland. I hope that the producers in this scheme will see the economic advantages which will result when this scheme is in operation. It is because I am anxious, not only in the raspberry industry, but throughout the agricultural industry in Scotland, that the farmers in Scotland may be protected from weak sellers and against middlemen who sometimes put fears into the minds of the sellers, that I hope the House of Commons this evening will unanimously agree to this Resolution.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friends and I are in complete hostility to the Measure as formulated, for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Since our friends above the Gangway propose to support the Government if a Division is called, it would be invidious for the hon. Member and myself to force a Division, but I hope that it will be noted that we are recording our opposition. We think the Secretary of State, if he had so wished, in giving approval to this scheme, could have made a proviso with the growers that in return for the protection which they were getting, they must present to him within a reasonable period some indication of the conditions which they were proposing to give to the people whom they employed. I do not think he needed special statutory powers to do that. This morning, in the Committee upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague told us how they were negotiating on the matter of houses with the building corporations which are getting certain rights conferred upon them by the House of Commons, and if it is possible for them to get into consultation with prospective builders of houses and to make bargains with them without special legislative or statutory support, it is possible for them to get in contact with the growers of fruit and to make terms about the conditions of their
employés. Because that has not been done, and because there is no indication that there has been even an attempt to have it done, we record our opposition to this scheme.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State to do something that is well within their competence and that comes within their statutory duty. On the occasion referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, I was up in a certain district in Perthshire to assist the people who had gone to pick raspberries there in the harvest season. They were very poor people, gathered from the slums of Edinburgh, Dundee, and Glasgow, and they were being exploited in the most atrocious way, not only in reference to wages, but there was no excuse in the fact that the industry was not profitable at that time. This particular farm on which I had these people out on strike—and I am talking of many years ago—was owned by a limited liability company. T took the trouble to go to the registered office of the company and to look at their record, and I found that they had paid a dividend of 33⅓ per cent. for the three preceding years, yet their workers harvesting their crops were being paid a wage that made it slavery to earn half-a-crown in a day, and in addition they were housed in the pigsties and the disused byres and stables round about the farm. They were fed—

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the hon. Member state if that was not some years ago, and if he has gone into the district in the last two or three years and looked into the conditions now?

Mr. MAXTON: It was some considerable time ago, and I know that the conditions changed very rapidly after that strike, but I will tell the hon. Lady how it came about. The War came along, and to get the crops harvested at all, the growers had to bring in lady teachers on
holidays and students from universities who were wanting to do a patriotic duty, and it was impossible to house the lady teachers or the students from the universities in the pigsties. But the hon. Lady must be aware that the housing conditions are far from decent yet in a whole lot of these places.
I am asking that the right hon. Gentleman, before the harvesting season commences, will take special care that his inspectors go into those areas to see that, on every farm where the growers are having the protection provided by this scheme and the prices provided for them by this scheme, the accommodation that is arranged for the workers who will come in from the different towns will be decent, healthy, and sanitary. That, at least, I think we have a right to ask. Indeed, when the season of the year comes round, my hon. Friends and I will take care that we ourselves have the necessary information, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary have not taken reasonable precautions, we will have recourse to our normal way of calling attention to these things. We state our definite opposition to this scheme as framed just now, and we record that opposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the regulation of the marketing of raspberries in Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 6th day of March, 1933, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Ten o'Clock.